Durham vs St Andrews vs Manchester

If academia is no show of intelligence, by your logic you may argue that people at Manchester aren't more intelligent than those at Coventry. It simply isn't the case. There is a hierarchy of the calibre of students with better students going to more prestigious universities, if you don't like that well tough.

Not everyone ends up going to do a masters or PhD, for many their undergrad is their terminal degree.

All that research stuff matters for fewer and fewer people, I am one of those people who is planning on doing research one day but i'm definitely in the minority.

That is not true, Masters studies is more popular now than ever, and with the addition of the new postgraduate loan, doing a masters will become the norm, especially for those who did a degree at a weak university and later wanted to top up with a higher degree from a much better one.

I am sorry, that you are not open to others opinions and I will therefore leave this conversation. Best of luck in Manchester!

To say that Durham is much better than Manchester is unfounded and wrong. Durham is weaker than so many more universities like Edinburgh, UCL, Bristol, Warwick etc.

You are wrong again and again.

I will try to explain it to you for the last time.

Durham and StA are better universities than Manchester, no doubt about this one. (I am not saying much better, there is one or two tier gap for undergraduate students)

The only reason, why Manchester is so high in world league tables is because the amount of research they carry. (same for UCL (you know, UCL is not TOP5 university in the world haha - MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxbridge etc,etc..) and Edinburgh) But, you have to understand, that their students body is about 4-5 times larger than both mentioned above. (same story for UofT) They accept almost everyone with BBB (Manchester) and as an undergraduate you are not involved in research that much, if somehow.

If you want my personal league table, it would be like this. (for undergraduate)

god tier: Oxbridge

first tier: Imperial,LSE, StA, Durham (maybe UCL - but you know, what sort of experience is it, when you come to an unknown huge city, with no campus, with incredibly big student population - do you think it will benefit you more to be one of 40 thousand then one of 10 thousand? Will you meet them all? )

second tier: Warwick, KCL, Edinburgh, Bath

third tier: Manchester, Bristol, Exeter, York etc...


edit: personal experince..this year, my friend applied for maths with AAB predicted - Imperial -rejected, StA - rejected, Warwick - rejected, Bristol - offer AAB, Manchaster - offer ABB

just one example, but still)

Stories!?! No facts. I suggest you average out the scores from the 3 World rankings to see where St Andrews and Durham are at the World stage. What grades a university asks for is less important. As long as the more elite courses attract the best (Medicine, Law, Economics etc).

Warwick is not second tier as you define it, it is the best University outside of Oxbridge and London, and KCL is also part of the Golden Triangle. After LSE and Oxbridge, more City firms recruit Warwick graduates than any other as they have such outstanding Economics and Maths departments to name but a few.

first tier: Imperial,LSE, StA, Durham (maybe UCL - but you know, what sort of experience is it, when you come to an unknown huge city, with no campus, with incredibly big student population - do you think it will benefit you more to be one of 40 thousand then one of 10 thousand? Will you meet them all? )

I would suggest you to read world rankings methodology. They are OK in some ways, but they give upper hand to larger universities. As I mentioned before, Edinburgh, KCL, UCL, Manchester, UofT, McGill, Bristol etc. are over positioned there.

Fist thing I can agree with is about Warwick. Their Maths and Econ department is well known, but in many other subjects they fall to TOP10-15, that is the reason why I put them to second tier (obv. for subjects mentioned above they are 1st tier).

It was one personal story to edit, as I just recall it. Not something significant.

The other thing is, what you define as world stage? USA? In my eyes, StA is perceived better there then ANY second tier or lower in my table.

You think entry tariffs are not important? Of course they are. It means any average student could get into Manchester.

I mean, ask other students, make a poll and I tell you that 80-90% of students would prefer StA and Durham to Manchester, Bristol.


Have a nice day and just deal with the truth..

Do you even know what a financial statement is? Where do you think St. Andrews and Durham are going to be in 10-15 years if they do not drastically improve their income streams? It is quite ironic that you say UCL has only its reputation and nothing else because such a statement is far more fitting for both Durham and St. Andrews.

What else can they offer? Facilities? The better funded universities have better. Research? The better funded universities out-research them and get even more funding. Links with industries? St. Andrews did not even manage to break the top 20 most targeted universities rankings since it was first published by the High Fliers Research. Manchester always ranks in the top 10.

Universities which expand (like Manchester, UCL etc.) are doing it for a good reason. I am quite confident management knows far better what needs to be done than a know-it-all teenager on a forum. The continuous development of any university without significant financial resources is impossible. The US institutions have a radically different financing model, which makes it possible for a lot of them to stay relatively small in terms of student numbers, while still having sheer financial power. This DOES NOT apply to the UK's system.

Again, I provide a perfectly relevant example, which I already used once...

Financial statements of St. Andrews and Dartmouth College as they are roughly the same size... Examine the following financial statements.

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

Please enlighten me how this precious prestige is going to compensate for differences of funding which are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS when it comes to a comparison with other UK universities you deem to be not up to par? If you think funding does not affect you as an undergraduate, then you live in a fairy tale. Not only does it affect you, but the overall rate of development of the actual university as well. That is the bigger picture you fail to see.

Better for Student Union - University of Dundee

Dundee actually has stronger overall research than any other Scottish uni and the best research in the life sciences in the UK, possibly Europe. So maybe add it to the first category too?

That is not true, Masters studies is more popular now than ever, and with the addition of the new postgraduate loan, doing a masters will become the norm, especially for those who did a degree at a weak university and later wanted to top up with a higher degree from a much better one.

Dundee actually has stronger overall research than any other Scottish uni and the best research in the life sciences in the UK, possibly Europe. So maybe add it to the first category too?

Is that why everyone choose Dundee for life sciences over Edinburgh?

In scotland, Edinburgh > Dundee at Life Sci. Dundee is good at life sci and its probably one of its strongest points but you can't beat Edinburgh, way more funding at Edinburgh and way more research.

You're mistaking perceived prestige and public perception with actual numbers. Do you really think which universities 17-year-olds choose to attend is a proper indicator of the quality of research carried out at an institution?

The College of Life Sciences in Dundee has around 1,000 staff alone, a Wellcome Trust Centre and over £100 million in annual research income.

Research in the Biological Sciences in Dundee was ranked 1st in the UK by the 2014 Research Excellence Framework, Edinburgh was ranked 3rd. Based on citations per paper Dundee was rated 1st in Europe in biological sciences by the QS ranking in 2013 and 2014, Dundee has also had the highest number of citations per paper in pharmacology in the world in the 1999-2009 period (I haven't found more recent data) by Thompson Reuters.

Please tell me again how Edinburgh, UCL, Imperial, KCL etc. are much better because, you know ... reasons. And due to public perception.

Congratulations on cherry picking the rankings. [...] In life sciences Dundee is always ranked behind Edinburgh and Glasgow in the times and while Edinburgh is 22nd Dundee is 51-100 in QS.

I've read this however, Dundee funding cuts:
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/academic-fears-for-dundee-medical-school-1.858459

Attack 17 year olds all you want but they are the future and they vote with their feet, people just don't choose Dundee unless they have to.

I have picked the rankings that actually refer to research exclusively, because that's what we are talking about. The sources I cited are sound, the UK government's REF 2014 for example is considered as the most important indicator of actual research excellence in the UK - and Dundee tops it for biological sciences.

You have cited a ranking that mixes a lot of factors (many not concerned with research) and is primarily based on reputation, exactly what I was arguing against.



Two can play at this game: University of Edinburgh condemns 'short sighted' funding cuts (6th March 2015)

Besides, the number of staff in the College of Life Science has actually gone up by around 180 with the opening of a new research centre last year.



Again, what 17-years-olds vote for doesn't determine the research strength of a university. Of course they can go where they want to go, but it doesn't change the reality of research.

You are picking parts of rankings not actual rankings themselves.

So what is there to show from Dundee? What discoveries have been made, any nobel prizes?

No one is saying Dundee isn't good at life sciences, what is true is that Dundee is not the best in Scotland, not the best in the UK or Europe in life sciences because that is just ridiculous to say.

How did I pick part of the REF 2014? Would you please come up with a single constructive argument to demonstrate that the most widely used framework to assess research excellence in the UK is wrong in thinking that Dundee has the best research in biological sciences in the UK?



I don't know and I don't care. Researchers from the university get tons of different prizes and awards every year, the last big one I remember was the Queen's Anniversary Prize 2014. As for discoveries, there is a constant stream - I'm not active in life sciences so how am I supposed to know which one is important and which isn't? Apparently last year scientists at Dundee discovered the process by which DNA helicase is disassembled which was celebrated as an important stepping stone in finding new treatments for cancer.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/scientists-find-dna-insight-for-treatment-of-cancer.25670880



According to the REF 2014, it is. According to citations per paper, it is. By the arbitrary standards you are applying (nobel prizes, general rankings factoring in reputation) it may not be.