Durham vs St Andrews vs Manchester
Scroll to see replies
Original post by unclebulgaria
Mods please edit the above post.
I do not see any reason
Just asked you, because you are so horrifically fighting for Manchester, despite it is completely irrational.
Was not offensively wondering about the reason.
Original post by taeht
Worthless to argue with you..
How can you call pharmacy a prestigious course, when EVERY pharmacy course was in extra? (beside Oxbridge and Imperial - if they offer any - not sure)
Both Durham and St Andrews are better than Manchester.
May I ask? You got accepted to Manchester and nowhere else? (no offense)
How can you call pharmacy a prestigious course, when EVERY pharmacy course was in extra? (beside Oxbridge and Imperial - if they offer any - not sure)
Both Durham and St Andrews are better than Manchester.
May I ask? You got accepted to Manchester and nowhere else?
(no offense)Oxbridge and Imperial do not offer pharmacy. I think that does speak volumes about how pharmacy is regarded. The most prestigious universities that offers pharmacy in the UK are UCL and KCL.
Original post by Okorange
Oxbridge and Imperial do not offer pharmacy. I think that does speak volumes about how pharmacy is regarded. The most prestigious universities that offers pharmacy in the UK are UCL and KCL.
And Bath, Durham, Nottingham, Manchester, Cardiff etc. I think it fair to say KCL's prestige is far greater internationally than domestically. In the UK, KCL probably would not be seen as a solid top 10 university, maybe top 15 like Manchester.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Okorange
Oxbridge and Imperial do not offer pharmacy. I think that does speak volumes about how pharmacy is regarded. The most prestigious universities that offers pharmacy in the UK are UCL and KCL.
Oxbridge and Imperial do not offer Dentistry either?
Original post by unclebulgaria
Oxbridge and Imperial do not offer Dentistry either?
I see where you are coming from but if you look at Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine, they are predominately at established unis mainly RGs.
However that is not the case for Pharmacy. Apart from UCL, KCL, Manchester, Durham, Nottingham and Bath, the other pharmacy schools are mainly at non-RG unis.
Original post by Okorange
I see where you are coming from but if you look at Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine, they are predominately at established unis mainly RGs.
However that is not the case for Pharmacy. Apart from UCL, KCL, Manchester, Durham, Nottingham and Bath, the other pharmacy schools are mainly at non-RG unis.
However that is not the case for Pharmacy. Apart from UCL, KCL, Manchester, Durham, Nottingham and Bath, the other pharmacy schools are mainly at non-RG unis.
Yet the grades are roughly BBB or higher even at the ex-polys, and many students say the course is very tough.
Original post by unclebulgaria
Yet the grades are roughly BBB or higher even at the ex-polys, and many students say the course is very tough.
Do you study pharmacy? Roughly BBB is quite low in my books. Pharmacy is not going to be an easy degree but that doesn't make it prestigious.
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.
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.
Unfortunately I cannot agree with anything you've said other than the parts highlighted in green :/
Btw, if you don't mind me asking, what was the reason for starting this thread? Are you thinking of applying to/choosing between these three universities? If so, which subject are you applying for? We are only doing you a favour in telling you that Durham and St Andrews are much more prestigious, surely?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by 2014
We are only doing you a favour in telling you that Durham and St Andrews are much more prestigious, surely?
So how does that "prestige" serve you in this regard? Boost your ego on a forum?
Original post by Broscientist
On forums with users who are mostly snobbish insecure teenagers? Probably. In the real world, where employers are doing the judging - not really as long as the university is reputable. In fact, when it comes to top-targeted universities surveys, St. Andrews is nowhere to be seen, while Manchester was #1 in the latest edition.
So how does that "prestige" serve you in this regard? Boost your ego on a forum?
So how does that "prestige" serve you in this regard? Boost your ego on a forum?
Well that depends entirely on what kind of job you're applying for. On what criteria did they measure employability in this survey?
The OP asked which university was better; I answered. I really don't think it's debatable. Sure there are other factors that come into play when applying for a job, and an Oxford graduate isn't guaranteed a job over a Manchester graduate. But does that mean Manchester is a better University than Oxford? No, of course not. I was only trying to help the OP by answering their question- going to a better university can only benefit him/her; in no way did this 'boost my ego'.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Broscientist
On forums with users who are mostly snobbish insecure teenagers? Probably. In the real world, where employers are doing the judging - not really as long as the university is reputable. In fact, when it comes to top-targeted universities surveys, St. Andrews is nowhere to be seen, while Manchester was #1 in the latest edition.
So how does that "prestige" serve you in this regard? Boost your ego on a forum?
So how does that "prestige" serve you in this regard? Boost your ego on a forum?
If you think this forum is for 'snobbish insecure teenagers', as you put it, why you feel the need to comment on this thread in such a forum is beyond me. I don't think I said anything to to deserve being labelled as such; you on the other have come across quite rude and presumptuous. Good luck in 'the real world' with that attitude, I'm sure people will love you.
Original post by 2014
Well that depends entirely on what kind of job you're applying for. On what criteria did they measure employability in this survey?
The OP asked which university was better; I answered. I really don't think it's debatable. Sure there are other factors that come into play when applying for a job, and an Oxford graduate isn't guaranteed a job over a Manchester graduate. But does that mean Manchester is a better University than Oxford? No, of course not. I was only trying to help the OP by answering their question- going to a better university can only benefit him/her; in no way did this 'boost my ego'.
The OP asked which university was better; I answered. I really don't think it's debatable. Sure there are other factors that come into play when applying for a job, and an Oxford graduate isn't guaranteed a job over a Manchester graduate. But does that mean Manchester is a better University than Oxford? No, of course not. I was only trying to help the OP by answering their question- going to a better university can only benefit him/her; in no way did this 'boost my ego'.
I am not saying which university is better and that is exaclty the point. Once a university is reputable enough, do you think an employer generally gives a damn how much more prestigious one institution is over the other? After all, I am not talking about comparing an ex-poly to St. Anrews/Durham etc. but a reputable and internationally respected university. And don't take my comments personally - I am not talking about you specifically, no need to be so defensive.
Another point I was trying to make that this ever so precious "prestige" which TSR members rave about, becomes useless if it can't even help you find a job (if that is your goal).
The fact of the matter is there are two universities, which truly have that "wow factor" and are a league in their own - Oxford and Cambridge. The others are more or less comparable - with them falling in the higher or upper tiers. If you think an employer will react like this:
"Wow let's get this fine chap from the far more prestigious St. Andrews/Durham. Obviously he is a lot smarter than that Manchester tosser."
Then you must be really naive.
Durham and St. Andrews will never be big international players until they increase their funding - they can't compete with the sheer raw financial power of other institutions. Whether people like it or not, financial income is the foundation for the development of a university. Prestige does not buy jack ****, money does.
"But a lot of the US colleges/universities are small but really prestigious."
They are financed in a completely different way. Take a look at Dartmouth and St. Andrews. In terms of students, they are similar in size, but their financial statements tell a whole different story.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~control/docs/financialrept/2013-dcfinancialstmt.pdf
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/finance/documents/Reports%20&%20Financial%20Statements%20for%20the%20year%2031%20July%202013.pdf
"Prestige" can only carry you so much. St. Andrews is an excellent university, but these meager ~180 million annual income are not doing it any favor.
I rest my case.
Original post by Broscientist
I am not saying which university is better and that is exaclty the point. Once a university is reputable enough, do you think an employer generally gives a damn how much more prestigious one institution is over the other? After all, I am not talking about comparing an ex-poly to St. Anrews/Durham etc. but a reputable and internationally respected university. And don't take my comments personally - I am not talking about you specifically, no need to be so defensive.
Another point I was trying to make that this ever so precious "prestige" which TSR members rave about, becomes useless if it can't even help you find a job (if that is your goal).
The fact of the matter is there are two universities, which truly have that "wow factor" and are a league in their own - Oxford and Cambridge. The others are more or less comparable - with them falling in the higher or upper tiers. If you think an employer will react like this:
"Wow let's get this fine chap from the far more prestigious St. Andrews/Durham. Obviously he is a lot smarter than that Manchester tosser."
Then you must be really naive.
Durham and St. Andrews will never be big international players until they increase their funding - they can't compete with the sheer raw financial power of other institutions. Whether people like it or not, financial income is the foundation for the development of a university. Prestige does not buy jack ****, money does.
"But a lot of the US colleges/universities are small but really prestigious."
They are financed in a completely different way. Take a look at Dartmouth and St. Andrews. In terms of students, they are similar in size, but their financial statements tell a whole different story.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~control/docs/financialrept/2013-dcfinancialstmt.pdf
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/finance/documents/Reports%20&%20Financial%20Statements%20for%20the%20year%2031%20July%202013.pdf
"Prestige" can only carry you so much. St. Andrews is an excellent university, but these meager ~180 million annual income are not doing it any favor.
I rest my case.
Another point I was trying to make that this ever so precious "prestige" which TSR members rave about, becomes useless if it can't even help you find a job (if that is your goal).
The fact of the matter is there are two universities, which truly have that "wow factor" and are a league in their own - Oxford and Cambridge. The others are more or less comparable - with them falling in the higher or upper tiers. If you think an employer will react like this:
"Wow let's get this fine chap from the far more prestigious St. Andrews/Durham. Obviously he is a lot smarter than that Manchester tosser."
Then you must be really naive.
Durham and St. Andrews will never be big international players until they increase their funding - they can't compete with the sheer raw financial power of other institutions. Whether people like it or not, financial income is the foundation for the development of a university. Prestige does not buy jack ****, money does.
"But a lot of the US colleges/universities are small but really prestigious."
They are financed in a completely different way. Take a look at Dartmouth and St. Andrews. In terms of students, they are similar in size, but their financial statements tell a whole different story.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~control/docs/financialrept/2013-dcfinancialstmt.pdf
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/finance/documents/Reports%20&%20Financial%20Statements%20for%20the%20year%2031%20July%202013.pdf
"Prestige" can only carry you so much. St. Andrews is an excellent university, but these meager ~180 million annual income are not doing it any favor.
I rest my case.
The OP seems to care which university is better.
Although I agree to a certain extent with most of what you're saying, I'd also like to think that, since to gain entry and receive a 1st from a top 5 standard uk university (such as UCL,Imperial,Durham,LSE etc) is harder than gaining entry and receiving a 1st from Manchester University, for instance, there is some weighting and benefit from it- otherwise I'd just be wasting my time and efforts and could have gone to a lower ranked university and made my life easier. Perhaps I am being naive. But I know that Investment Banks, for instance, are much more likely to hire a graduate from a UK top 5 university than a university ranked at 30.
There are also people in wonderful jobs who haven't even gone to university. However university is not just about getting a job, it's also about academia and in that respect, at least at undergraduate level, Manchester really isn't comparable to the likes of Durham and St Andrews, for most courses and overall. It may have better research facilities and more funding, but the calibre of students-academically- is irrefutably lower.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by 2014
Perhaps I am being naive. But I know that Investment Banks, for instance, are much more likely to hire a graduate from a UK top 5 university than a university ranked at 30.
Yes, there are employers who target specific universities, you are completely right about that. There are also surveys which examine the preference of these employers:
Graduate Market Report 2011
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport11.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2012
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport12.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2013
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport13.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2014
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport14.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2015
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf
As you can see, Manchester is in the 10 top-targeted universities in all of the reports. Is that a coincidence? Or the result of a spiritual ritual performed by shamans in North Africa? Employers sure seem to think that Manchester is #30 in the UK.
Original post by 2014
There are also people in wonderful jobs who haven't even gone to university. However university is not just about getting a job, it's also about academia and in that respect, at least at undergraduate level, Manchester really isn't comparable to the likes of Durham and St Andrews, for most courses and overall. It may have better research facilities and more funding, but the calibre of students-academically- is irrefutably lower.
There are also people in wonderful jobs who haven't even gone to university. However university is not just about getting a job, it's also about academia and in that respect, at least at undergraduate level, Manchester really isn't comparable to the likes of Durham and St Andrews, for most courses and overall. It may have better research facilities and more funding, but the calibre of students-academically- is irrefutably lower.
It is not all black or white. You can not compare universities of substantially different sizes and draw definitive conclusions about them or their students.
(edited 9 years ago)
I would also like to point out that a large university is by no means less prestigious than smaller ones. For example, all Canadian universities (UofT, McGill, UBC, etc.) in general have low entry requirements and take in almost anyone who applies due to the sheer size of its undergraduate classes, but the general public still perceive them to be reputable and internationally recognized. Why can't the same apply for Manchester?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Broscientist
This "a first from university "X" is worth as much as a 2.1 from university "Y"" is a fairy tale found only on TSR. Again, St. Andrews and Durham are not Oxbridge and we are not comparing them to an ex-poly. Also domestic league tables tend to be a bit absurd. Do you think universities like Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, KCL etc. truly rank as they do in the league tables? Just look at how ridiculous some of the rankings are.
Yes, there are employers who target specific universities, you are completely right about that. There are also surveys which examine the preference of these employers:
Graduate Market Report 2011
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport11.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2012
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport12.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2013
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport13.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2014
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport14.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2015
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf
As you can see, Manchester is in the 10 top-targeted universities in all of the reports. Is that a coincidence? Or the result of a spiritual ritual performed by shamans in North Africa? Employers sure seem to think that Manchester is #30 in the UK.
Consider both sides of the coin - the size of Manchester's student body and then that of St. Andrews/Durham. One could argue that if St. Andrews/Durham expanded their intake to the level of Manchester, they would not be able to maintain the same standard. If you were talking about Edinburgh for example, I would agree.
It is not all black or white. You can not compare universities of substantially different sizes and draw definitive conclusions about them or their students.
Yes, there are employers who target specific universities, you are completely right about that. There are also surveys which examine the preference of these employers:
Graduate Market Report 2011
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport11.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2012
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport12.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2013
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport13.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2014
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport14.pdf
Graduate Market Report 2015
http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf
As you can see, Manchester is in the 10 top-targeted universities in all of the reports. Is that a coincidence? Or the result of a spiritual ritual performed by shamans in North Africa? Employers sure seem to think that Manchester is #30 in the UK.
Consider both sides of the coin - the size of Manchester's student body and then that of St. Andrews/Durham. One could argue that if St. Andrews/Durham expanded their intake to the level of Manchester, they would not be able to maintain the same standard. If you were talking about Edinburgh for example, I would agree.
It is not all black or white. You can not compare universities of substantially different sizes and draw definitive conclusions about them or their students.
Still, on average Durham and St Andrews students are brighter than Manchester students.
Original post by milkberries
I would also like to point out that a large university is by no means less prestigious than smaller ones. For example, all Canadian universities (UofT, McGill, UBC, etc.) in general have low entry requirements and take in almost anyone who applies due to the sheer size of its undergraduate classes, but the general public still perceive them to be reputable and internationally recognized. Why can't the same apply for Manchester?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because prestige actually matters in the UK like it does in the US. In the US those big state research unis like UVA, Michigan aren't considered as prestigious as smaller but more selective unis.
It doesn't in Canada, which in my opinion is a good thing but we can't change the world. The truth is, there isn't a single Canadian university that is selective across the board. Some schools have selective programs but across the board almost every Canadian school is just a big state school.
Original post by Okorange
Still, on average Durham and St Andrews students are brighter than Manchester students.
I think it is more appropriate to say "diligent", "ambitious", "motivated" etc.The genuinely more intelligent students are in Oxbridge.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Broscientist
Academic performance = intelligence? I think it is more appropriate to say "diligent", "ambitious", "motivated" etc.
The genuinely more intelligent students are in Oxbridge.
I think it is more appropriate to say "diligent", "ambitious", "motivated" etc.The genuinely more intelligent students are in Oxbridge.
Its intelligence and hardwork but don't deny that intelligence makes it easier to succeed. Yeah and after Oxbridge probably comes St Andrews/Durham/UCL/Imperial/LSE/Warwick/Edinburgh etc. Manchester comes a next tier down.
Original post by Okorange
Its intelligence and hardwork but don't deny that intelligence makes it easier to succeed. Yeah and after Oxbridge probably comes St Andrews/Durham/UCL/Imperial/LSE/Warwick/Edinburgh etc. Manchester comes a next tier down.
Manchester probably has more employer friendly degree courses on offer than Durham and St Andrews. I still think Durham and St Andrews could do more to offer relevant subjects that makes their graduates more targeted by employers. At least the Durham business school is starting to take shape nicely, though miles behind that of Manchester Business School.
For many Science and Engineering students, St Andrews and Durham may not be appropriate institutions to apply to.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- International Reputation vs Global Reputation
- Would you rather attend...?
- Play the forum game that's playing 3 threads below this one
- st andrews vs durham for physics?
- RSCI vs St Andrews vs Bristol (Medicine A100)
- St Andrews vs Durham Psychology
- Durham VS St Andrews: Who would YOU pick?
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- St Andy's vs. Oxbridge = more like Oxbad
- Durham vs St Andrews University 2021
- Birmingham vs St Andrews for maths/physics
- MANCHESTER VS SOUTHAMPTON for EEE
- MSc Artificial Intelligence (St Andrews) vs (MSc Data Science) Glasgow
- University of Bath vs St. Andrew’s
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Anthropology applicants chat 2023
- Incoming English Literature students - thread
- Unis similar to Glasgow and St andrews
- Glasgow Vs Durham for UG Classics?
- Cambridge CS chances
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
