Durham vs Bath

Hi guys. I am struggling with deciding my choices. I have received a conditional offer form both bath and durham for bsc econ. I would like to know which is more prestigious than one another. And any other advices are welcome. Thank you

Hi guys. I am struggling with deciding my choices. I have received a conditional offer form both bath and durham for bsc econ. I would like to know which is more prestigious than one another. And any other advices are welcome. Thank you

Hi guys. I am struggling with deciding my choices. I have received a conditional offer form both bath and durham for bsc econ. I would like to know which is more prestigious than one another. And any other advices are welcome. Thank you

Durham is a Top 11 university in the UK. It can be realistically argued to lie in the 8th to 11th position. I would personally put it at 8th.

Bath is a Top 20 university in the UK. It can be realistically argued to lie in the 13th to 19th position. I would personally put it at 17th.

So definitely Durham > Bath.

@RoyalBeams I agree that Durham is superior to Bath.

However, I'd argue that Bath is a top 10-12 university in regards to prestige. In last year's academic cycle, Bath was tied 7th with Warwick, in England, for average entry standards (170 UCAS points) - beaten only by Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL & Durham. It also had a lower offer rate than Warwick: 62.7% vs 65.1%.

Moreover, Bath's graduate prospects are some of the best in the country - generally seen as top 5/6. The sporting facilities are excellent and the city itself is regarded as one of the most beautiful in the UK.

I'll grant that it's research excellence is lacking relative to many large Russell Group institutions, but I don't think this is all that relevant to notions of prestige. For example, Queen Mary is a research powerhouse in areas such as Computer Science, yet I need not comment on its reputation.

Of course, there is also the notability of alumni to take into account. Bath may not compete with the likes of Birmingham in this area, but it does have big hitters with former executives/chairs of some of the world's largest companies & government organisations.

Prestige in education is a factor of:
- Brand power (How much people know it, "Wow" factor and rankings; global superior)
- Selectivity (Quality of applicants, Entry standards, Offer rates and Yield)
- History (Alumni quality & Impact of its research on society in history)
- Graduate prospects (Types of jobs and salary levels)
- Quality of Academic Staff (Mostly reseach quality)
- Financial muscle (Budget relative to fields covered & size, Research grant/contracts & Endowment)

I would give slightly higher weightings in descending order.


For Bath:
- Brand power (How much people know it, "Wow" factor and rankings; global superior) ..........Using judgement, I would say between 13th to 20th
- Selectivity (Quality of applicants, Entry standards, Offer rates and Yield) ..............If I mix all 4 together and use judgement, it would be 13th to 16th
- History (Alumni quality & Impact of its research on society in history) .............. Plate Glass University and no great history of research; Not in Top 20
- Graduate prospects (Types of jobs and salary levels) ......................I would put it around 6th to 10th
- Quality of Academic Staff (Mostly research quality) ............................Current research quality is around 20th to 25th
- Financial muscle (Budget relative to fields covered & size, Research grant/contracts & Endowment) ...................Not in Top 25


For Warwick:
- Brand power (How much people know it, "Wow" factor and rankings; global superior) ..........Using judgement, I would say between 8th to 12th
- Selectivity (Quality of applicants, Entry standards, Offer rates and Yield) ..............If I mix all 4 together and use judgement, it would be 13th to 16th
- History (Alumni quality & Impact of its research on society in history) .............. Plate Glass University and no great history of research; Not in Top 20
- Graduate prospects (Types of jobs and salary levels) ......................I would put it around 6th to 10th
- Quality of Academic Staff (Mostly research quality) ............................Current research quality is around 9th to 13th
- Financial muscle (Budget relative to fields covered & size, Research grant/contracts & Endowment) ...................Probably around 15th to 20th

Based on all these, I think I would put Bath more in the 17th to 22nd range in prestige amongst UK universities; While I would put Warwick at 9th to 12th.

Interesting assessment. My weightings for the factors you've outlined are likely quite different. The fact you've shifted the lower bound of Bath's prestige up four places, in the space of just five months, suggests your formulation is somewhat unscientific.

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the top 20 universities in the UK?

It definitely is not scientific, otherwise I would not be using ranges.

Secondly, it is a league table, things move in league tables based on new/recent outcomes (or information).

Top 20
1. Oxford (can be realistically argued 1st or 2nd)
2. Cambridge (can be realistically argued 1st or 2nd)
3. LSE (can be realistically argued 3rd to 4th)
4. Imperial (can be realistically argued 3rd to 5th)
5. UCL (can be realistically argued 3rd to 5th)
6. Edinburgh (can be realistically argued 6th to 7th)
7. KCL (can be realistically argued 6th to 7th)
8. Bristol (can be realistically argued 8th to 11th)
9. Durham (can be realistically argued 8th to 11th)
10. St Andrews (can be realistically argued 8th to 11th)
11. Warwick (can be realistically argued 9th to 12th)
12. Manchester (can be realistically argued 10th to 12th)
13. Nothingham (can be realistically argued 13th to 17th)
14. Glasgow (can be realistically argued 13th to 18th)
15. Birmingham (can be realistically argued 13th to 19th)
16. Leeds (can be realistically argued 13th to 19th)
17. Exeter (can be realistically argued 15th to 19th)
18. Bath (can be realistically argued 17th to 22nd)
19. York (can be realistically argued 17th to 22nd)
20. {Tough} Southampton/Sheffield/Cardiff/QML/Lancaster/SOAS (all can be realistically argued 18th to 26th)

As you go further down, it obviously starts dovetailing. I would prefer one uses bands after the Top 12.

When I was thinking Bath was 13th to 19th months ago, I was mentally putting it in the "Nottingham-to-York" band range; but obviously thought it was lower down the band, hence why I said 17th then.

After that inchoate assessment, I am certain it is at that lower end of the band. The top Big City universities in that band will be superior in the assessment. Exeter and York are its real peers.

I think you're conflating the size of a Russell Group university, in terms of campus size & student body, with prestige. Larger universities located in big cities, such as Birmingham, Leeds or Sheffield will naturally receive more government funding in the form of research grants. Many professors are also drawn to live in these cities, for the same reasons most young professionals are. As such, their performance in the REF will be superior.

A university's research performance has little relevance to undergraduate students. The course material is already well-established, so any notion of a trickle down effect is tenuous.

Prestige mostly boils down to how hard it is to get in somewhere & how rigorous the course is. This is what top employers care about, and this is why Bath does so well in this regard. Elite firms want as much intellectual horsepower as they can get their hands on. Alongside this, there are more subtle indicators of prestige, such as the aesthetics of the campus & proportion of students from independent schools. Successful parents from London generally push their kids to go to Exeter over Birmingham so they can meet a certain crop of people - whether we like it or not.

Your placement of Birmingham above Bath is mistaken in my view. Birmingham is known to be quite lenient with handing out offers. The city itself also carries the lovely reputation of being one of the worst in the country.

I think you're conflating the size of a Russell Group university, in terms of campus size & student body, with prestige. Larger universities located in big cities, such as Birmingham, Leeds or Sheffield will naturally receive more government funding in the form of research grants. Many professors are also drawn to live in these cities, for the same reasons most young professionals are. As such, their performance in the REF will be superior.

A university's research performance has little relevance to undergraduate students. The course material is already well-established, so any notion of a trickle down effect is tenuous.

Prestige mostly boils down to how hard it is to get in somewhere & how rigorous the course is. This is what top employers care about, and this is why Bath does so well in this regard. Elite firms want as much intellectual horsepower as they can get their hands on. Alongside this, there are more subtle indicators of prestige, such as the aesthetics of the campus & proportion of students from independent schools. Successful parents from London generally push their kids to go to Exeter over Birmingham so they can meet a certain crop of people - whether we like it or not.

Your placement of Birmingham above Bath is mistaken in my view. Birmingham is known to be quite lenient with handing out offers. The city itself also carries the lovely reputation of being one of the worst in the country.

No, I am not conflating prestige with size, otherwise, LSE and Imperial would not be in my Top 4 and St Andrews in my Top 10. I have given the methodology I used and I highlighted size was considered.

And as a matter of fact, I don't even think the term "prestige" can be extended beyond the Top 11 or Top 12 universities.

Beyond these, I regard all the other universities as just "Top" universities.

As for selectivity, selectivity is about many people wanting something and giving it to only a few, only about 9 universities are actually selective in he UK. They are the only ones with consistently below 60% offer rates. They are Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, KCL, Manchester (on some rare occassion, slightly above 60%) and adding St Andrews and Edinburgh, even though they have advantage of Scottish students being automatically forced to apply to them (but even before the change in Scottish fees laws, they had low offer rates, unlike Glasgow).

All the other universities in the Top 12, such as Durham, Warwick and Bristol have as high as 80% offer rates (i.e. every 4 out of 5 applicants get an offer). That is not selective and some mid-ranked unis like Essex, Goldsmiths and many ex-polys like Greenwich, Middlesex have less offer rates than they do. Many unis not special have offer rates of 60s to 70s percent.

60% and below is what is really rare in the UK. Only about 9 universities consistently fall blow this and no ex-poly has offer rates at that level or below.

Baths offer rate is consistently about 74%. Exeter is usually 79% to as high as 90% (i.e. every 9 out of 10 applicants get an offer). Birmingham is about 65% to 73% and its is from a much larger applicant pool. So Birminham gives less offers to a larger pool of applicants.

As for research having little relevance to undergrads, I disagree.

When a university is good at research, its staff are winning awards, the news is carrying stories about breakthrough research they are carrying out, their staff are the experts the media go to interview on top issues happening and the most successful companies are choosing to fund research in their institutions, they become subconciously front-of-brain in people's minds as prestigious. These helps students be perceived as attending a prestigious university.

That said, I put less weighting on current research than historical research because most people will know more about the latter. Both are a downside for Bath due to its age and not being deep into research.

As for percentage of students from independent schools and succesful parents. I already factored that into Selectivity (Quality of applicants).

Admittedly, the Top 12 along with Exeter, York and Bath are were the kids [of the most successful parents] that attended the leading independent schools are likely to select and go to. But Exeter, York and Bath tend to usually be 5th choices for majority of these kids.

Offer rates can be a misleading determinant of prestige. For example, in the last academic cycle, Queen Mary had an ever-so-slightly lower offer rate than Bristol. Other than Queen Mary's location, this is because far more students are able to attain the requisite predicted grades from their teachers! The university is then forced to reject many of these mediocre students, due to limited capacity. In terms of assessing selectivity, entry standards carry far more weight. I've already mentioned that Bath's entry standards are the 7th highest in England - the university possesses some of the brightest students in the country & this is reflected in their graduate prospects.

For example, last year, you needed AAA to study Mechanical Engineering at Manchester & A*AA to study the same course at Bath. Moreover, the former offers an integrated foundation year that demands only BBC (if you possess three relevant subjects). I personally know someone who gained entry into that program. Does that seem prestigious to you?

I take your point on research. Although, as you said, historical research carries a lot more weight. Even so, there are too many factors in research performance that are extraneous to prestige. As previously mentioned, the main ones are the city and size of the university. Imperial, LSE & St Andrews, all specialist institutions, are exceptions to this rule.

You mention Bath's age, but are you aware that its roots go back to the Merchant Venturers' Technical College - an organisation that provided Bristol's engineering faculty until 1949. Bath is hardly a "fifth choice" as you say. I'm aware of several people who accepted an offer there over KCL. I can't fault their decision either, especially after KCL's scandal in May where the admissions team were too incompetent to even formally reject many applicants.

Almost all institutions have roots decades back before their higher institution status; the point remains they were not a high institution then, so that argument is irrelevant and does not change the age argument.

I don't think city and size of universities play an impact in how good a university is in research. The fact is that top universities tend to be built in cities and make the locations they are in more prominent due to their success. So the argument is actually the other way round: "Research performance of an educational institution play a major factor in increasing the size of the institution and making its located city more prominent".

The towns of Oxford and Cambridge would have been irrelevant towns if not for the prestige and research powers of the universities in them.

And all countries in the world would have many of their Top 1% of universities in their major cities (i.e. Administrative capital, Commercial capital and Regional capitals). Same applies to the UK; that is just how it iis built.

A typical extremely top student will have:
1st choice: Oxford/Cambridge | 2nd choice: LSE/Imperial/UCL | 3rd choice: UCL/Durham/Edinburgh/KCL/St Andrews/Bristol/Warwick | 4th choice: Durham/Edinburgh/KCL/St Andrews/Bristol/Warwick/Manchester | 5th choice: Bristol/Warwick/Manchester/Nottingham/Glasgow/Exeter/Bath/York/SOAS/Birmingham/Leeds/And any shocker choice (like Oxford Brookes and UWE)

A typical extremely top student that wants to study Maths will probably go:
1st choice: Cambridge | 2nd choice: Imperial | 3rd choice: Warwick | 4th choice: Bristol | 5th choice: Bath

A typical extremely top student that wants to study Law will probably go:
1st choice: Oxford | 2nd choice: LSE | 3rd choice: UCL | 4th choice: KCL | 5th choice: Warwick

UCL and Durham are very popular 3rd choices for independent school students. And Exeter, Bath and York are very popular 5th choices for such students. That means UCL would have more Oxbridge applicants apply to it than LSE and Imperial, but in most cases, it is really a popular 3rd choice; while Imperial and LSE tend to be second when these students apply to them.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2014/jul/24/interactive-which-universities-think-equals

So if you don't think offer rates are reliable for prestige, what factors do you think would be good to use to assess prestige and would not be possibly misleading?

It is both. A university that is producing good research is more likely to receive investment from the government if it is located in a prominent city, relative to one that is not. This is partly due to stronger industry ties between the university & top local firms.

Furthermore, international students are attracted to the UK’s largest cities as these are the most well known. In turn, the Russell Group university in that respective city benefits from more international fees, allowing them to expand their department & spend more on research. It’s a feedback loop.

Hi guys. I am struggling with deciding my choices. I have received a conditional offer form both bath and durham for bsc econ. I would like to know which is more prestigious than one another. And any other advices are welcome. Thank you