The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

How important is university prestige?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for Jj15
Jj15
8
Original post by MathsMaster45
On UCAS It still says offers will normally specify achievement in STEP.


I have a MMorse offer and my mate a Maths offer. Both of us are given the standard option of with & without STEP offer.
Reply 61
Avatar for Jj15
Jj15
8
Original post by anonwinner
UCL has 3x more students than LSE and is 70 years older.

Regardless, I would group LSE, ICL, and UCL closer to Oxbridge than to Warwick.


This^ I agreed
Reply 62
Avatar for Mojo Banjo
Mojo Banjo
OP
I have a friend called Dave that won't even make eye contact with anyone who hasn't gone to at least a RG university...so yeh it's important init
Reply 63
Avatar for HOLA255
HOLA255
7
Original post by Mojo Banjo
So we've just had some important rankings released but tbh no one cares. It's all based on crap like library funding.

University prestige:

Oxford
Cambridge
--------------------
Warwick
LSE
UCL
Imperial
Durham
----------------
St Andrews
Edinburgh
----------------
RG
----------------
Others

To me university prestige is everything. It's even more important than course (apart from very vocational subjects like medicine and dentistry)

It defines what kind of job you get, what kind of friends you make and generally how successful you're gonna be in life.


Study the social sciences and psychology of the economic social classes.
Why is Birmingham University not on here? I'm thinking of studying chemistry there, is it bad?
Original post by TheGreatPumpkin
Why is Birmingham University not on here? I'm thinking of studying chemistry there, is it bad?


Birmingham is perfectly fine in almost all cases.
Original post by Princepieman
Oh yeah, the students who are set to achieve multiple A*s are definitely not in a competitive applicant pool at all, definitely.

This isn't America we don't just measure competitiveness based on acceptance rate.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Heh heh Princepieman is very clever, he knows that people would bring up Warwick's 70%+ offer rate.

But seeing as there's such a big difference between how many people get offers and how many people actually accept their offers, it shows that for a lot of the applicants who apply to Warwick, the university isn't their top choice.

Consider KCL, it gives offers to around 42% of applicants with around 45% of those getting offers accepting their place.
Original post by C_Richards99
Heh heh Princepieman is very clever, he knows that people would bring up Warwick's 70%+ offer rate.

But seeing as there's such a big difference between how many people get offers and how many people actually accept their offers, it shows that for a lot of the applicants who apply to Warwick, the university isn't their top choice.

Consider KCL, it gives offers to around 42% of applicants with around 45% of those getting offers accepting their place.


Not necessarily. Could just mean they have bigger departments..

The offer rate in actuality is much more complex than people make it out to be: yield is something to bear in mind (many who apply to Oxbridge also apply to Warwick), the delta between firm and insurance, the difficulty of the offers (A*A*A* is tough, so are the offers with STEP), the competitors Warwick has for its more renowned course offerings etc.

KCL's figures are watered down by the international students drawn to the 'London' name.
Original post by anonwinner
Oxbridge > LSE > ICL > Everything else


I've seen it all
Original post by Princepieman
Not necessarily. Could just mean they have bigger departments..

The offer rate in actuality is much more complex than people make it out to be: yield is something to bear in mind (many who apply to Oxbridge also apply to Warwick), the delta between firm and insurance, the difficulty of the offers (A*A*A* is tough, so are the offers with STEP), the competitors Warwick has for its more renowned course offerings etc.

KCL's figures are watered down by the international students drawn to the 'London' name.


If Warwick knew that a higher percentage of people would accept their offers, they wouldn't give out so many offers. Also considering it's one of the universities which does Clearing implies that it struggles to fill its places. After all even if Warwick gives out STEP offers, there are still non-STEP unis which have higher entry standards. Even its more renowned courses has offer rates of 50%+, compared to KCL's most renowned course which has an offer rate of 2%.

How in any way are KCL's figures watered down by 'international students'?? Makes no sense for you to be making this statement when the proportion of international students at KCL is only 0.6% higher than at Warwick.
Original post by C_Richards99
If Warwick knew that a higher percentage of people would accept their offers, they wouldn't give out so many offers. Also considering it's one of the universities which does Clearing implies that it struggles to fill its places. After all even if Warwick gives out STEP offers, there are still non-STEP unis which have higher entry standards. Even its more renowned courses has offer rates of 50%+, compared to KCL's most renowned course which has an offer rate of 2%.

How in any way are KCL's figures watered down by 'international students'?? Makes no sense for you to be making this statement when the proportion of international students at KCL is only 0.6% higher than at Warwick.


You're other stuff is a fair argument, I'll give you that. Edit: would point out that their most competitive courses don't go into clearing.

The last bit however is false. There's a difference between international proportion of a university's intake and the international proportion of a university's applicant pool. The latter by default (due to the London brand) is much, much higher. A cross example would be Harvard's applications, there are way more international students applying than international students represented within the class.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Why are you all bashing warwick lol its ranked very highly and the students have A*s at A level

Top unis mean you need and will gain top grades and this shows your competence when it comes to careers imo
Original post by Youngmetro
Why are you all bashing warwick lol its ranked very highly and the students have A*s at A level

Top unis mean you need and will gain top grades and this shows your competence when it comes to careers imo


It seems like the 'de jour' of TSR to mock a perfectly respectable top uni.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
You're other stuff is a fair argument, I'll give you that. Edit: would point out that their most competitive courses don't go into clearing.

The last bit however is false. There's a difference between international proportion of a university's intake and the international proportion of a university's applicant pool. The latter by default (due to the London brand) is much, much higher. A cross example would be Harvard's applications, there are way more international students applying than international students represented within the class.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I would be very worried if its most competitive courses go into clearing.

Ok, so what your saying is that there a higher number of international applicants to KCL compared to Warwick because KCL has the word, London in it. While I don't doubt that there is some truth in this, can you explain why you think it subsequently alters the offer rates? Are you saying that international applicants who have no chance of getting into KCL waste a space on their UCAS application to apply there purely because of the London brand name? Therefore KCL can subsequently reject more international applicants which alters its offer rates?

I find this hard to believe given the well-known fact that the offer rate for international applicants is usually way higher than for UK/EU students given that they pay about double the tuition fees.
Original post by Princepieman
It seems like the 'de jour' of TSR to mock a perfectly respectable top uni.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Yeah, seems like every uni gets a fair share of bashing on this forum, sad really because people would genuinely get a false perception that x uni is ****
Original post by anonwinner
There are no competitive (undergrad) courses at Warwick, except Medicine.


Original post by anonwinner
It's easier to get high UMS in Maths/Science A Levels than humanities subjects, so obviously Imperial students will have higher UCAS points than LSE students. This doesn't necessarily mean they are of higher calibre.

LSE has the highest graduate salary in the country. 34 past or present heads of state and 18 Nobel laureates studied/taught at LSE. This profile is a lot more similar to Oxbridge than it is to Warwick.


Imperial had the highest graduate salary in the country last year, I believe. :wink:. Not really surprised either way, LSE is a hothouse for IB/law/top consulting and IC again for IB/quant types and some consulting/STEM degrees generally having higher salaries. It doesn't really mean that much in the end.

I wouldn't really rate LSE over Imperial. They're around the same imo. LSE have some degrees like Social Policy and Sociology which are ABB or something.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by yl95
Imperial had the highest graduate salary in the country last year, I believe. :wink:. Not really surprised either way, LSE is a hothouse for IB/law/top consulting and IC again for IB/quant types and some consulting/STEM degrees generally having higher salaries. It doesn't really mean that much in the end.

I wouldn't really rate LSE over Imperial. They're around the same imo. LSE have some degrees like Social Policy and Sociology which are ABB or something.


I was using this http://university.which.co.uk/advice/career-prospects/top-universities-graduate-starting-salaries but it's from 2014 so you might be correct about ICL having the highest graduate salary last year.

I'm fairly certain that LSE's lowest A Level requirements are AAB, and even LSE's 'weakest' degrees are competitive in terms of applicant to offer ratio.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TheGreatPumpkin
Why is Birmingham University not on here? I'm thinking of studying chemistry there, is it bad?

Original post by ByronicHero
Birmingham is perfectly fine in almost all cases.


Seemed to work out alright for this birmingham graduate http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/business/alumni/news/dls-lucy-baldwin.aspx

these threads are consciously or unconsciously a running joke on TSR...

in this case consciously ..

Original post by Mojo Banjo
I have a friend called Dave that won't even make eye contact with anyone who hasn't gone to at least a RG university...so yeh it's important init
Original post by Joinedup
Seemed to work out alright for this birmingham graduate http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/business/alumni/news/dls-lucy-baldwin.aspx

these threads are consciously or unconsciously a running joke on TSR...

in this case consciously ..


It's about averages... If you don't understand that, then that's probably why you ended up at Birmingham university.
Original post by Adlucinor
I am interested in this thread. As an individual with offers from Warwick, Exeter, and Bristol, for English Literature, I'd like to see whether or not anyone thinks that there really is anything between all those universities in terms of prestige? And, if there is, is prestige really that important?

The difference between these universities is negligible so go where you prefer. All 3 are excellent universities but are very different environments.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you