Are Durham and St Andrews prestigious or massively overrated?

I wouldn't say its in the 'top 5' for economics, Warwick trumps it,
History Durham and St Andrews beat it
Law St Andrews doesn't do because its in Scotland
Imperial is far better than it for both Pharmacy and Medicine.

UCL is no better than Warwick IMO, it is just always massively oversubscribed purely for the 'London factor' by foreign students, it is certainly not worth triple the PG rate they charge than Durham, Warwick or STA charge.

Imperial don't offer Pharmacy. And students pay a premium because UCL is ranked top 5 in the World by QS.

sorry i didn't mean imperial i meant Kings,

but QS takes into other factors also which hardly say about quality, for example physical size of the university and amount of students attending.

St Andrews and Durham are in fairly sleepy towns in the North and UCL is the largest university in London - a major world city - its the same problem LSE has had in being considered as global institution owing to its limited faculties and inability to expand.

On the other foot it also explains why so many Ivies are considered far better, well they get a lot more investment because US students are forced to pay ridiculous prices but they are also gigantic.

Money and size doesn't mean better quality.

PS: they pay top prices for ANY university in london purely because it has the international london factor, not because any QS rankings, by that logic it says that Manchester or Liverpool are better than Durham and Warwick which is clearly not correct.

Believe it or not, location does influence whether a university is a good place to study. UCL's London location helps it to attract better students, which boosts its performance overall. The fact that many of those applying to it are drawn by the 'London factor' doesn't necessarily weaken its academic standing.

PS: they pay top prices for ANY university in london purely because it has the international london factor, not because any QS rankings, by that logic it says that Manchester or Liverpool are better than Durham and Warwick which is clearly not correct.

Only Manchester is ranked above Durham and Warwick by QS, and by some distance too. This is because it is academically much larger and stronger as a research intensive university than the others. They also attract many more international students, and have a much larger annual income, around £827 million (more than Imperial's £822 Million).

When will students wake up to the fact that Manchester is one of the World's top research universities, with an annual income nearly 3 times that of Durham's £300 million?

Believe it or not, location does influence whether a university is a good place to study. UCL's London location helps it to attract better students, which boosts its performance overall. The fact that many of those applying to it are drawn by the 'London factor' doesn't necessarily weaken its academic standing.

Ok so why is York better than both Durham and St Andrews then? and why is Manchester ranked so low in national tables?

York is not ''better'' than Durham or St Andrews, neither is it worse. Manchester ranks poorly in national tables due it's huge size and student population. This dilutes all the ratios used in national league tables, including tariff points. The university is due to overhaul it's teaching in the near future, and they plan to spend £1 billion on new developments going forward, so their national ranking can only improve.

Well its a contradiction in itself then if you claim Manchester's size is the reason it is fairing poorly in ratios when its size is exactly the reason it is said to be better than others, it has nothing to do with the actual teaching or research quality. Ive looked around Manchester, read reviews and course modules for my fields and it certainly is nowhere near the the three above and does not deserve to be seen as better in any shape or form.

Well its a contradiction in itself then if you claim Manchester's size is the reason it is fairing poorly in ratios when its size is exactly the reason it is said to be better than others on the QS league, it has nothing to do with the actual teaching or research quality. Ive looked around Manchester, read reviews and course modules for my fields and it certainly is nowhere near the the three above and does not deserve to be seen as better in any shape or form.

St Andrews isn't even Russell Group. I think it's more known for its posh alumni than its academic clout. That said, it is a very beautiful place to spend 3 years. Durham is very good with regards to academics, but I think that LSE, UCL, Imperial and Kings (in some subjects) trump it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Just because a uni isn't RG doesn't mean it's bad. Look at Bath.

St Andrews is too far away and cold.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I guess it depends on who you ask, but to say that UCL is better than Durham, St Andrews and Warwick is undeserved and unsubstantiated. It is defo in the next band per say under oxbridge but it is not exceptional excellence.

Given their tiny size, St Andrews must indeed offer top notch education considering they can still rank in the World top 100. It is a great achievement, they are punching above their weight.

Weren't you the guy slagging them off in another thread?

Do you just like disagreeing with people?

Posted from TSR Mobile