The Student Room Group

Queen's Belfast VS Warwick VS Glasgow

For Civil Engineering?? :confused:

What are the fundamental diffrences between these unis for this particular degree?

I know warwick is pretty prestigious when it comes to economics, but does this translate to the engineering as well though that departement seems to be pretty small there..

I'd prefer Glasgow as a place, but the 4 years long bachelor's is a big minus. I dont really know anything about Belfast, dunno actually why I even applied there!! :eek:

So opinnions please, peeps! :smile:
Reply 1
I've no idea if Civil Engineering is a new course at Warwick, but they didn't enter either the 2001 or 2008 research assessment, they don't appear in the league tables, they have no QAA score, and the dept. website sounds pretty vague. Civil Engineering is not my forte afraid, I know Glasgow's Engineering Faculty is good and is, I believe, the oldest in the UK, but aside from that, I do not know. Queen's has a good rep for Engineering aswell though. Warwick's vagueness surprises me- but you are correct, the 'prestige' of a university doesn't always translate to certain courses- Southampton is probably one of the two or three best engineering faculties in the UK, Strathclyde, City and Aston are not exactly amongst the very best as universities, but are for business. I'd probably go Queen's if I were you- Belfast is great. All that said, you can skip the first year of Scottish Universities if you have good enough grades- the extra year is just to allow those who didn't sit advanced highers to catch up.
a fundamental difference between them could be that Warwick takes a interdisciplinary approach to engineering where all the engineers are housed in a single department and that they endeavour to provide a more integrative engineering degree compared to Glasgow and QUB who take the traditional specialisation-focused route.

QUB lumps together their architecture and planning people with their civ engineers in a single department. i don't know for sure but it could be a case of a different way of categorising knowledge and there may not be a signifant deal of overlap between the course contents of the 3 disciplines.

with regards to prestige, my general rule is that you could go to any of the russell group universities (except lse obviously) and get a very good, solid engineering education. however there is a different side to this that you might be interested in: it is worthwhile taking into account the industrial links of a department when choosing a uni.

in the ideal world, as long as you have the grades and the relevant skillset, you should not be disadvantaged when applying for a job. but your applications if they do not get auto-filtered are evaluated by hiring managers and i know a few who prefer some universities over the others. they prefer graduates of universities that they have worked and have links with from which they know there is a consistency of quality. they have no problem rejecting applicants with firsts in favour of 2.1s from a largely comparable uni. if you are concerned about funding, attending a well-connected department also enhances your chances of securing an industrial sponsorship for your studies.

between your three picks, warwick i would say has the best industrial links. in fact employers respond to warwick very well overall. im not suggesting warwick students are that much more clever than qub or glasgow (that might well be the case, who knows) but building an industrial network appears to be higher up on their education agenda than the other two.

but definitely do not be put off going to glasgow or qub if prefer them. you are unlikely to end up homeless because you choose them over warwick. its more important to have an undergraduate career that you are happy with, and will remember fondly, than anything else.

Latest