Are Durham and St Andrews prestigious or massively overrated?

I think calling Durhamand St Andrews 'unis that pick up people who didnt get into oxbridge' is silly, tby that logic any unis that arent unis that specialise (eg. falmouth-animation, LSE-economics) are unis that pick up people who didnt get into oxbridge. People in Durham and St Andrews are most likelly going to get amazing careers.

I agree Durham and St Andrews are great for undergraduate but not for post grad. They're not as academically intense as Oxbridge and they don't try to be. The university tends to encourage students to get good academics (A*AA entry requirements, heavily oversubscribed courses), but also lots of extra-curricular and sports. Oxbridge, as you can tell straight from the application process, is almost purely academic. You'll have a great time and education as an undergrad, but you won't enjoy the prestige of a strong research and post-grad university, which is why it comes no. 1 for certain undergraduate subjects and then suddenly disappears from world rankings below places like Manchester and Nottingham *shivers*.


Posted from TSR Mobile

from what i've heard from more than one person Durham is full of the up-themselves oxbridge rejects....also heard that Durham is more snobby than oxbridge -- basically because the people are bitter about being rejected etc, and a lot of Rahs (you know that type).
Heard bad things about Durham open day too, the talks implying really stuck up standards that Oxbridge (who are obviously better) would never say....obviously not everyone who goes there is like that. But it kind of implies the lecturers are kind of snobby too.....I just think there's nicer universities for that standard and That Durham seem to need taking a peg down.
Plus it's not like going to these institutions is a guarantee of some great job or even a job at all....so I don't know what they have to be so up themselves about...kind of makes me laugh

UCL have already overtaken Oxford for annual income, and with further expansion plans in the near future, their income will soon eclipse Cambridge.

Could you please provide some evidence substantiating your claim? It's just that I quickly had a look at the financial statements of both Oxford and UCL and they don't seem to agree with what you're saying.

In 2013 the total net income for UCL was £937 million (2012 / 2013 financial statement)

In 2013 the total net income for Oxford was £1086 million (2012 / 2013 financial statement).

The difference is still more than £100 million.

Well, they do take students in at A*AA-A*A*A, so they certainly take the cream of the talent at undergraduate level. That doesn't mean the universities themselves are great. I still feel the likes of Imperial, LSE, UCL, KCL, Edinburgh are miles ahead overall. Even Bristol and Warwick can confidently say they are better than Durham overall. The reality is that Durham and St Andrews are more at the level of Manchester and Nottingham, but their ancient routes seem to draw some of the best students to these much smaller universities in order to compensate for a rejection from the G5 universities.

I think the poll may be missing a third option:
"Both Durham and St. Andrews are respectable in their own right."

You have to take into account the recent merger with IOE-
http://thetab.com/uk/london/2014/12/02/ucl-becomes-2nd-richest-uni-britain-overnight-ioe-merger-15574

Oh okay, but it's only a difference of £14 million (and I'm sure some rounding has been done) so I'm not sure that constitutes a huge upheaval in higher education.

I can't help thinking you are just chasing reps here rather than being constructive in the debate.

Why is there no middle ground in the poll?

I can't help thinking you are just chasing reps here rather than being constructive in the debate.

Same reason as for the Scottish Independence vote, in or out. No dithering inbetween.