Is Brunel a respected uni?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Oilfreak1
this is false
No this statement is correct
Original post by ppapanastasiou
No this statement is correct
As someone who did undergrad at a university considerably more prestigious than Brunel, and who is studying postgrad somewhere even more so. Ex-ploys were well represented at interviews. University name means absolutely nothing to postgrad admissions, your grades and passion for the subject mean everything. Anyone in the postgrad sub will tell you the same.
Original post by Oilfreak1
As someone who did undergrad at a university considerably more prestigious than Brunel, and who is studying postgrad somewhere even more so. Ex-ploys were well represented at interviews. University name means absolutely nothing to postgrad admissions, your grades and passion for the subject mean everything. Anyone in the postgrad sub will tell you the same.
Again it depends. Many universities such as LSE have flagship Masters and other more "soft" Masters. The "soft" Masters are in my opinion there for the university to get some additional funding and also offer the opportunity to students to get a MSc degree without having to do extremely academic degrees. The flagship Masters however have very, very competitive entry and are very academic.
For example at LSE there is the MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics. With no exception (I know this from the inside, because I know three people who did this course) all the students were from good universities and none had been at an ex-poly. Why is that? Quite simple, the level of economics taught at ex-polys is not mathematical or academic enough to get accepted to this course.
Now for more "soft" masters such as the MSc in Gender, Media and Culture you may find a few ex-poly graduates there.
So although you might have good grades and you might have shown a lot of passion for the subject, if what you have learned at an ex-poly is not academic enough, then I am afraid your chances of getting accepted in some prestigious MSc are very small, since you are missing some serious academic training which is vital for completing the course.
Original post by ppapanastasiou
Again it depends. Many universities such as LSE have flagship Masters and other more "soft" Masters. The "soft" Masters are in my opinion there for the university to get some additional funding and also offer the opportunity to students to get a MSc degree without having to do extremely academic degrees. The flagship Masters however have very, very competitive entry and are very academic.
For example at LSE there is the MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics. With no exception (I know this from the inside, because I know three people who did this course) all the students were from good universities and none had been at an ex-poly. Why is that? Quite simple, the level of economics taught at ex-polys is not mathematical or academic enough to get accepted to this course.
Now for more "soft" masters such as the MSc in Gender, Media and Culture you may find a few ex-poly graduates there.
So although you might have good grades and you might have shown a lot of passion for the subject, if what you have learned at an ex-poly is not academic enough, then I am afraid your chances of getting accepted in some prestigious MSc are very small, since you are missing some serious academic training which is vital for completing the course.
For example at LSE there is the MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics. With no exception (I know this from the inside, because I know three people who did this course) all the students were from good universities and none had been at an ex-poly. Why is that? Quite simple, the level of economics taught at ex-polys is not mathematical or academic enough to get accepted to this course.
Now for more "soft" masters such as the MSc in Gender, Media and Culture you may find a few ex-poly graduates there.
So although you might have good grades and you might have shown a lot of passion for the subject, if what you have learned at an ex-poly is not academic enough, then I am afraid your chances of getting accepted in some prestigious MSc are very small, since you are missing some serious academic training which is vital for completing the course.
I studied Engineering at Manchester, neither soft nor is my undergrad uni an ex-poly. I got accepted to UCL, LSE and Imperial for postgrad, the place I accepted was MSc Metals and Energy Finance at Imperial (applied by accident to the others because Imperial took too long to give me an offer). There were about 7-8 applicants per place, so certainly not "soft" (the business school put a clear cap on this course because they felt we were getting into the business school "on the cheap". I was the only person from Manchester who applied to secure a place, and alot of us applied - it's a fantastic course with ridiculous employment prospects - while someone from an ex-poly received a place alongside me.
Sure the world top 50 unis (Nottingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, KCL, etc,) may be recognized because of their global brand names but this means little to nothing. Generally speaking Brunel, Kingston and other obscure unis like greenwich mean as much as London Met and NTU to admissions.
I agree the course may not be suitable but this has nothing to do with the reputation of the university (Unless your applying to like Maths with an undergrad from Warwick), may I ask where you are/have applied to study at postgraduate?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Oilfreak1
I studied Engineering at Manchester, neither soft nor is my undergrad uni an ex-poly. I got accepted to UCL, LSE and Imperial for postgrad, the place I accepted was MSc Metals and Energy Finance at Imperial (applied by accident to the others because Imperial took too long to give me an offer). There were about 7-8 applicants per place, so certainly not "soft" (the business school put a clear cap on this course because they felt we were getting into the business school "on the cheap". I was the only person from Manchester who applied to secure a place, and alot of us applied - it's a fantastic course with ridiculous employment prospects - while someone from an ex-poly received a place alongside me.
Sure the world top 50 unis (Nottingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, KCL, etc,) may be recognized because of their global brand names but this means little to nothing. Generally speaking Brunel, Kingston and other obscure unis like greenwich mean as much as London Met and NTU to admissions.
I agree the course may not be suitable but this has nothing to do with the reputation of the university (Unless your applying to like Maths with an undergrad from Warwick), may I ask where you are/have applied to study at postgraduate?
Sure the world top 50 unis (Nottingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, KCL, etc,) may be recognized because of their global brand names but this means little to nothing. Generally speaking Brunel, Kingston and other obscure unis like greenwich mean as much as London Met and NTU to admissions.
I agree the course may not be suitable but this has nothing to do with the reputation of the university (Unless your applying to like Maths with an undergrad from Warwick), may I ask where you are/have applied to study at postgraduate?
The fact that you are from Manchester (a redbrick university) and you got to such a competitive MSc reinforces even more what I said. Now, just because apparently one guy from an ex-poly also got accepted does not change my opinion. Maybe this guy has good working experience, maybe he had really good grades or maybe he is an outlier.
Bottom line is that for admissions university brand DOES mean something. Sure you will find your occasional outlier but the majority of the people will have finished top universities and good degrees. Otherwise, the MSc is not competitive enough.
Now regarding myself, although I have stated my CV in a previous thread I will outline it here one more time for your convenience: I have two MSc degrees; one in Economics from Freiburg University (Germany), were I also did my undergraduate degree in Economics. Freiburg University is one of the oldest and most established universities in Germany. Freiburg belongs to the U15 group which is equivalent to the Russell Group (RG) in the UK. The association German U15 e.V. is a coalition of fifteen major research-intensive and leading medical universities in Germany with a full disciplinary spectrum, excluding any defining engineering sciences.
I then did the Masters in Mathematical Trading and Finance (MTF) at Cass Business School. Cass is not as prestigious as LBS or LSE but I would argue that it has a good reputation and as a business school it is considered to be in the top 5-10 in the UK. Also City university, to which Cass belongs too, has recently joined the university of London (UoL) as one of its constituent colleges, this should further increase the reputation of the university. Interestingly enough Imperial was part of the UoL until it left in 2007. So far it has been the only institution to leave the UoL.
Finally, I did my PhD in Economics at the university of Bremen (Germany). The University of Bremen is one of 11 institutions classed as an "Elite university" in Germany, and a university of approximately 23,500 students. It has become the science center of North West Germany. I now work for a big financial firm abroad.
I write in this forum because I want to help students to decide what to study. When I first finished school I was accepted in an ex-poly. I very quickly realized that doing a degree there was a waste of time. I redid my Exams and got accepted to Freiburg University. The level of education was like night and day. The economics degree at the ex-poly was a joke compared to the degree at Freiburg. Freiburg's exams were way more mathematical and academic and the curriculum was much harder and broader.
Employers and universities are aware of these differences and I warn people when they choose to study a degree at an ex-poly. Sure Cambridge is not for everyone but do not fool yourself thinking that a degree from Manchester is equal to the same degree from Manchester Metropolitan, it is not.
By the way Brunel (I am sure you know that I am just stating it as a clarification) is not an ex-poly, it is a plate glass university. I am stating this because many people mistakenly think Brunel is an ex-poly, I even met a guy who studied there and he thought Brunel is an ex-poly. Kingston, Greenwich, London Met and Nottingham Trent are indeed ex-polys.
Hope this long post helped!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ppapanastasiou
The fact that you are from Manchester (a redbrick university) and you got to such a competitive MSc reinforces even more what I said. Now, just because apparently one guy from an ex-poly also got accepted.
they were accepted over several other "redbrick" and "G5" candidates, when I start in September i'll let you know if I find more. I'm fairly certain the fact that I went to Manchester meant little to nothing for UCL/LSE (for Imperial it may have, due to Manchesters fantastic Petroleum connections and the nature of the MSc).
Bottom line is that for admissions university brand DOES mean something.
If that's the case people from Brunel and Kingston may as well not bother applying to top universities.
I now work for a big financial firm abroad.
I may want to pick your brain later on.
I write in this forum because I want to help students to decide what to study.
I write in this forum to kill time at work, but don't like seeing people from less well regarded universities being dissuaded from aiming for the top.
I very quickly realized that doing a degree there was a waste of time.The level of education was like night and day.
I've not studied at an ex-poly so can't comment; though there are individuals who have studied at both Man Met and UoM and state UoM has worse teaching (anecdotal though).
Employers and universities are aware of these differences and I warn people when they choose to study a degree at an ex-poly.
Employers yes, universities not so much.
Sure Cambridge is not for everyone but do not fool yourself thinking that a degree from Manchester is equal to the same degree from Manchester Metropolitan, it is not.
Of course not can't compare the place where the atom was first split and the computer was first conceived to an ex-poly. I can however compare Brunel to Man Met, regardless of what admissions think of the stronger unis unless the course is explicitly more quantitative, whether you go to brunel or an ex poly have no bearing on postgrad admissions, would argue even Manchester is equivalent to Brunel/Ex-Polys (for postgrad not employment) but have no substantial evidence so we can agree to disagree on that point.
Hope this long post helped!
it did
they were accepted over several other "redbrick" and "G5" candidates, when I start in September i'll let you know if I find more. I'm fairly certain the fact that I went to Manchester meant little to nothing for UCL/LSE (for Imperial it may have, due to Manchesters fantastic Petroleum connections and the nature of the MSc).
Bottom line is that for admissions university brand DOES mean something.
If that's the case people from Brunel and Kingston may as well not bother applying to top universities.
I now work for a big financial firm abroad.
I may want to pick your brain later on
.I write in this forum because I want to help students to decide what to study.
I write in this forum to kill time at work, but don't like seeing people from less well regarded universities being dissuaded from aiming for the top.
I very quickly realized that doing a degree there was a waste of time.The level of education was like night and day.
I've not studied at an ex-poly so can't comment; though there are individuals who have studied at both Man Met and UoM and state UoM has worse teaching (anecdotal though).
Employers and universities are aware of these differences and I warn people when they choose to study a degree at an ex-poly.
Employers yes, universities not so much.
Sure Cambridge is not for everyone but do not fool yourself thinking that a degree from Manchester is equal to the same degree from Manchester Metropolitan, it is not.
Of course not can't compare the place where the atom was first split and the computer was first conceived to an ex-poly. I can however compare Brunel to Man Met, regardless of what admissions think of the stronger unis unless the course is explicitly more quantitative, whether you go to brunel or an ex poly have no bearing on postgrad admissions, would argue even Manchester is equivalent to Brunel/Ex-Polys (for postgrad not employment) but have no substantial evidence so we can agree to disagree on that point.
Hope this long post helped!
it did
Replies in bold.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Oilfreak1
Replies in bold.
If that's the case people from Brunel and Kingston may as well not bother applying to top universities.
Answer: No they should not be discouraged but they should be aware of what chances they have.
I may want to pick your brain later on
Answer: Please do!
I write in this forum to kill time at work, but don't like seeing people from less well regarded universities being dissuaded from aiming for the top.
Answer: I am not at work I am home since I have taken holidays this week. And yes you are right I DO NOT like seeing people being dissuaded from aiming at the top. Unless instead of DON'T you meant DO. In that case here is my answer: You do not know me, I find it arrogant from you to believe that I try to dissuade people from less regarded universities. Why are you so mistrustful? If I state my reasons why do you think you know better? Have I given you a reason? Have you seen me writing anything which is not true about myself? I was very open regarding my CV and my intentions.
Employers yes, universities not so much.
Answer: Both employers and universities as well as any sane person who has a basic understanding of the UK higher educational system.
Of course not can't compare the place where the atom was first split and the computer was first conceived to an ex-poly. I can however compare Brunel to Man Met, regardless of what admissions think of the stronger unis unless the course is explicitly more quantitative, whether you go to brunel or an ex poly have no bearing on postgrad admissions, would argue even Manchester is equivalent to Brunel/Ex-Polys (for postgrad not employment)but have no substantial evidence so we can agree to disagree on that point.
Answer: I tend to agree that the lower ranked traditional universities such as Brunel do not have great differences to most of the ex-polys. But when we move up the ranking ladder the differences are massive.
Replies NOT in bold!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ppapanastasiou
Answer: I am not at work I am home since I have taken holidays this week. And yes you are right I DO NOT like seeing people being dissuaded from aiming at the top. Unless instead of DON'T you meant DO. In that case here is my answer: You do not know me, Ifind it arrogant from you to believe that I try to dissuade people from lessregarded universities. Why are you so mistrustful? If I state my reasons why doyou think you know better? Have I given you a reason? Have you seen me writinganything which is not true about myself? I was very open regarding my CV and myintentions.
It's not your post. sorry if I came of arrogant/mistrusting. There are several posts that if someone from a lower ranked uni would see and think "why bother". It may not be your intention but just seeing said posts could dissuade/demoralize someone.
Answer: Both employers and universities as well as any sane person who has a basic understanding of the UK educational system
Employers yes, post-grad again not so much, if the degree is accredited by the same body and the candidate has achieved excellent grades and shown a clear passion for the subject the university name will not hold them back. Some of the top departments do maintain strong relationships so coming from a top university may enhance your application simply because admissions know your department/lecturers well. But as long as your course is accredited and you have displayed a strong passion and sense of where you want to go post- Masters the university means nothing at all at post-grad, it is completely different when employers are looking at your CV however.
Replies NOT inbold!
Answer: I am not at work I am home since I have taken holidays this week. And yes you are right I DO NOT like seeing people being dissuaded from aiming at the top. Unless instead of DON'T you meant DO. In that case here is my answer: You do not know me, Ifind it arrogant from you to believe that I try to dissuade people from lessregarded universities. Why are you so mistrustful? If I state my reasons why doyou think you know better? Have I given you a reason? Have you seen me writinganything which is not true about myself? I was very open regarding my CV and myintentions.
It's not your post. sorry if I came of arrogant/mistrusting. There are several posts that if someone from a lower ranked uni would see and think "why bother". It may not be your intention but just seeing said posts could dissuade/demoralize someone.
Answer: Both employers and universities as well as any sane person who has a basic understanding of the UK educational system
Employers yes, post-grad again not so much, if the degree is accredited by the same body and the candidate has achieved excellent grades and shown a clear passion for the subject the university name will not hold them back. Some of the top departments do maintain strong relationships so coming from a top university may enhance your application simply because admissions know your department/lecturers well. But as long as your course is accredited and you have displayed a strong passion and sense of where you want to go post- Masters the university means nothing at all at post-grad, it is completely different when employers are looking at your CV however.
Replies NOT inbold!
replies in bold, addressed two points agree with everything else.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Oilfreak1
replies in bold, addressed two points agree with everything else.
Employers yes, post-grad again not so much, if the degree is accredited by the same body and the candidate has achieved excellent grades and shown a clear passion for the subject the university name will not hold them back. Some of the top departments do maintain strong relationships so coming from a top university may enhance your application simply because admissions know your department/lecturers well. But as long as your course is accredited and you have displayed a strong passion and sense of where you want to go post- Masters the university means nothing at all at post-grad, it is completely different when employers are looking at your CV however.
Answer: Agree with this and with your answers!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Brunel VS Kingston --- HELP!!!
- Brunel physician associate interview
- How is Brunel for physiotherapy?
- I am really confused whether I should go to Brunel or take a gap year?
- Brunel university for biomedical science
- University Selection
- SOAS or Brunel for Accounting and finance
- Been living overseas
- Brunel vs goldsmiths for computer science
- Will King's College London (KCL) accept my second year transfer?
- uni clearing
- help me rank these universities
- Is Brunel a good choice to learn game design?
- which uni should i firm and put as an insurance for law
- Brunel or Birmingham university
- Kingston or Brunel?
- Brunel accommodation
- Brunel vs Manchester Metropolitan for software engineering
- How good is Birkbeck, University of London?
- Is City University good for Law
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 weeks ago
Transferring from Kingston university to Brunel universityLast reply 8 months ago
How fast and reliable are the taxi’s/ubers from Heathrow?Trending
Last reply 4 weeks ago
Transferring from Kingston university to Brunel universityLast reply 8 months ago
How fast and reliable are the taxi’s/ubers from Heathrow?
