City, RHUL or QMUL?
I need some help to decide which of these I should go to?
I mean I like all of them individually but I'm thinking more towards RHUL because it has really high job prospects.
Which one would you guys choose and why?
Also which university is the most respected out of the three by firms?
Thank You.
I mean I like all of them individually but I'm thinking more towards RHUL because it has really high job prospects.
Which one would you guys choose and why?
Also which university is the most respected out of the three by firms?
Thank You.
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Bump
Surely it has to be Royal Holloway. I'm not familiar with reps for computer science, but in terms of overall rep RHUL is substantially above the other two.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Surely it has to be Royal Holloway. I'm not familiar with reps for computer science, but in terms of overall rep RHUL is substantially above the other two.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
No social life at all?
Are there any shops nearby? If there is that's enough for me.....
Also how are the students like there?
Original post by Yearforever
No social life at all?
Are there any shops nearby? If there is that's enough for me.....
Also how are the students like there?
Are there any shops nearby? If there is that's enough for me.....
Also how are the students like there?
I don't actually go to RH, I'm at Imperial, but I have friends at RH. From what I've heard, social life is centred around the student union (which is supposedly one of the best in the country). There is a Tesco nearby where you can get all your essentials. Windsor and Staines are a 5-10 minute train journey away for more serious shopping. Google Egham if you want more info about the local area.
(edited 13 years ago)
Come on guys! I need more opinions...Which one woul dyou choose an why?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
Original post by Yearforever
Come on guys! I need more opinions...Which one woul dyou choose an why?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
As long as you get 2.1 you will be fine
Original post by Chucklefiend
Surely it has to be Royal Holloway. I'm not familiar with reps for computer science, but in terms of overall rep RHUL is substantially above the other two.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
Having said that, is location/nightlife important to you? Obviously QMUL and City are in the heart of London, whereas RH is 20 miles away from London in a small town, with very little in terms of off campus pubs/clubs. So it depends what you're looking for really.
No it's not. Not at all. They're all roughly the same. Royal Holloway is good, but so are QMUL and City. They're all traditional universities, just not the prestigious ones.
Original post by Yearforever
Come on guys! I need more opinions...Which one woul dyou choose an why?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
Also is a CS Degree from RHUL respected by major companies?
Respected as in "this guy must be exceptionally intelligent because he did computer science at Royal Holloway", then no. Royal Holloway isn't prestigious for any subject as far as I'm aware, and no employer sees Royal Holloway as a prestigious university. As far as I know, the exceptionally good computer science graduates come from Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Bristol, Southampton (essentially the top engineering universities) and perhaps a handful of other leading traditional universities such as Durham, Edinburgh etc.
But it's a good degree. Just not exceptional. Having RHUL stamped on your application alone certainly wouldn't make you stand out as an Oxbridge or Imperial graduate would. But it won't ring any alarm bells either.
Original post by Ilustrius
No it's not. Not at all. They're all roughly the same. Royal Holloway is good, but so are QMUL and City. They're all traditional universities, just not the prestigious ones.
What exactly are you basing this opinion on? By almost any measure you care to consider: the research assessment exercise, teaching quality, employment prospects, average entry requirements, graduates achieving a "good" degree etc etc, Royal Holloway performs significantly better than either Queen Mary's or City. This is relfected in various rankings tables. In the 2011 Times World Ranking of Academic universities for example, Royal Holloway was placed the 88th best university in the world, Queen Mary's was 120th and City didn't even feature in the top 200.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Chucklefiend
What exactly are you basing this opinion on? By almost any measure you care to consider: graduate employment prospects, research assessment, teaching quality, average entry requirements, graduates achieving a "good" degree etc etc, Royal Holloway performs significantly better than either Queen Mary's or City. This is relfected in various rankings tables. In the 2011 Times World Ranking of Academic universities for example, Royal Holloway was placed the 88th best university in the world, Queens was 120 and City didn't even feature in the top 200.
What are you basing your opinion on? Are you even a university graduate? Have you bothered talking to employers?
Who gives a toss that Royal Holloway is 88th in a British-compiled world ranking? Just because Royal Holloway is ranked 88th does that make it a better university than the London School of Economics? Even so, it's a British compiled world ranking so it's arguably biased towards British universities - Royal Holloway isn't even in the top 200 in the more established ARWU.
Royal Holloway's entry requirements are too low to be considered prestigious. There are better qualified students at QMUL and City than Royal Holloway, and vice versa.
Universities award degree classifications at their own discretion so 'graduates achieving a good degree' is an entirely irrelevant factor.
Teaching quality is entirely subjective.
So what about the RAE? You've shot yourself in the foot considering QMUL have a higher RAE score than RHUL. And RHUL's is only marginally better than City's.
EDIT: Just found that Royal Holloway's computer science students have lower entry qualifications than both City and QMUL computer science students, so you've shot yourself in the foot again.
Original post by Ilustrius
What are you basing your opinion on? Are you even a university graduate? Have you bothered talking to employers?.
No I haven't, but there are official figures published for the number of graduates employed in gradute level jobs, so why would I need to?
Original post by Ilustrius
...Even so, it's a British compiled world ranking so it's arguably biased towards British universities - Royal Holloway isn't even in the top 200 in the more established ARWU.
As all the institutions the OP is asking about are British, potential bias towards British universities in the Times Rankings is relevant how?
Original post by Ilustrius
Royal Holloway's entry requirements are too low to be considered prestigious...
Really? I didn't realise there was an entry requirement based cut off point for "prestigiousness". Out of interest, where exactly would draw the line?
Original post by Ilustrius
There are better qualified students at QMUL and City than Royal Holloway, and vice versa..
A standard offer at RHUL is AAB/ABB, a standard offer at QMUL is BBC/BCC and a standard offer at City is BCC/CCC. Of course there will be exceptions, but on average, students at RHUL will have more UCAS points on entry than QMUL or City, by a substantial margin.
Original post by Ilustrius
Universities award degree classifications at their own discretion so 'graduates achieving a good degree' is an entirely irrelevant factor..
So it's just a coincidence that Oxford and Cambridge happen to have the highest percentage of students achieving a "good degree"?
Original post by Ilustrius
Teaching quality is entirely subjective...
No it isn't. University teaching standards are independently assessed on an objective scale and awarded a score out of 24 (RHUL scored 24 across the majority of its departments).
Original post by Ilustrius
So what about the RAE? You've shot yourself in the foot considering QMUL have a higher RAE score than RHUL. And RHUL's is only marginally better than City's.
Source? Your claim does not match the figures I've looked at.
(edited 13 years ago)
I'm a QMUL Computer Science student (1st year) and I can definitely recommend the university for Comp Sci students. The facilities on campus are great in our department, lecturers are excellent and the course is challenging but effective at teaching you the skills that are necessary in our field. I think that having everything together on one campus and the university's location (3 tube stops from central london) makes QMUL a great place to study. My advice would be to not take rankings tables so seriously (how accurate can something be when the positions fluctuate so much year over year?) and to choose the university based on where you think you would prefer to study, in my case I thought that having everything on the same campus within minutes of each other and being so close to the centre of London (for tourism, nightlife, daytime leisure, etc) would be better for me. Of course this is my own opinion, and I'm sure the other two uni's are great too. Hope you choose the right uni for you, good luck 
.
.Original post by Chucklefiend
No I haven't, but there are official figures published for the number of graduates employed in gradute level jobs, so why would I need to?
Take these figures with a pinch of salt. Any figure has no correlation to earning potential.
Original post by Chucklefiend
As all the institutions the OP is asking about are British, potential bias towards British universities in the Times Rankings is relevant how?
As all the institutions the OP is asking about are British, potential bias towards British universities in the Times Rankings is relevant how?
What if the OP is from overseas, or intends to work overseas? Then it becomes important to distinguish between universities from different countries. And RHUL is an unknown quantity overseas, just as City and QMUL are.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Really? I didn't realise there was an entry requirement based cut off point for "prestigiousness". Out of interest, where exactly would draw the line?
Really? I didn't realise there was an entry requirement based cut off point for "prestigiousness". Out of interest, where exactly would draw the line?
Based on common sense and basic interpolation, there is a strong correlation between entry standards and prestige. RHUL's entry standards are too low for it to be considered prestigious.
Original post by Chucklefiend
A standard offer at RHUL is AAB/ABB, a standard offer at QMUL is BBC/BCC and a standard offer at City is BCC/CCC. Of course there will be exceptions, but on average, students at RHUL will have more UCAS points on entry than QMUL or City, by a substantial margin.
A standard offer at RHUL is AAB/ABB, a standard offer at QMUL is BBC/BCC and a standard offer at City is BCC/CCC. Of course there will be exceptions, but on average, students at RHUL will have more UCAS points on entry than QMUL or City, by a substantial margin.
Where do you get your information from? Why do you feel so compelled to pull bull**** out of your arse?
Royal Holloway standard requirements: ABC or BBB.
QMUL requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, thus higher than RHUL)
City requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, again higher than RHUL)
http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/Studying/ug/applicationProcedure.html
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/entryrequirements/32159.html
http://www.city.ac.uk/study/courses/informatics/computer-science-bsc.html
There's my evidence. Now, where the hell is yours?
Original post by Chucklefiend
So it's just a coincidence that Oxford and Cambridge happen to have the highest percentage of students achieving a "good degree"?
So it's just a coincidence that Oxford and Cambridge happen to have the highest percentage of students achieving a "good degree"?
Does that make Oxford a better University than Cambridge then? Because there are 91.8% of Oxford students who received a "good degree" last year compared to only 87.3% from Cambridge.
On a similar note, 80% of Sussex graduates had "good degrees". Does that make Sussex better than Imperial College, Durham, London School of Economics, Nottingham, York, Kings College, Warwick, Exeter, Bath and Manchester?
I would have thought not, wouldn't you agree?
Original post by Chucklefiend
No it isn't. University teaching standards are independently assessed on an objective scale and awarded a score out of 24 (RHUL scored 24 across the majority of its departments).
No it isn't. University teaching standards are independently assessed on an objective scale and awarded a score out of 24 (RHUL scored 24 across the majority of its departments).
Let me reiterate. What have teaching standards got to do with reputation? The London School of Economics are notorious for poor teaching standards, is Royal Holloway therefore more prestigious than the London School of Economics? Not a chance. And once again, you're wrong. Teaching standards are subjectively assessed. Being independently assessed makes it even more subjective.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Source? Your claim does not match the figures I've looked at.
Source? Your claim does not match the figures I've looked at.
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727
Read it and weep.
The average RHUL computer science student has fewer UCAS points than both City and QMUL computer science students.
You have been served.
(edited 13 years ago)
**** me, you are one smarmy self-satisfied little ****.
I think what I shall be taking with a "pinch of salt", is your baseless conjecture if you don't mind.
Of course there is a correlation between the percentage of graduates in graduate level employment and earning potential. If you're in graduate level job it's highly likely that you are going to be earning more than somebody who is unemployed, or somebody in a non-graduate position. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can interpret this.
You're grabbing at straws a little don't you think? There is no mention of international reputation or employment prospects outside of the UK in the OP. Regardless, any decent employer anywhere, can and almost always will, do some research on their applicants. A quick Google search of the university or "unknown quantity" in question would soon reveal that a Royal Holloway graduate studied at an institution significantly higher rated than QMUL and City in every single rankings table published in the UK.
I have no problem with your first assertion here. However, while I accept a correlation between entry requirements and "prestige" exists, I do not accept that it is a prerequisite. Your argument constitutes a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Prestige is essentially how sought after and elusive places are. RHUL had almost 12000 applications for 2000 places last year, that's an applicants to places ratio of 6:1. This is higher than some top 10 universities and imo qualifies RHUL as "prestigious" under the common definition of the term.
Allow me to point out two slight oversights on your part (I'll incredulously give you the benefit of the doubt): Firstly, it actually states in your own source "280-320 UCAS points". Secondly, even taking the higher figure, 320 UCAS points does not equate to ABB, unless an applicant had no fourth AS (which I imagine is a rarity). Assuming a candidate had a B in a fourth AS, 320 points would actually be closer to BBC - (Remarkably similar to that bull**** I pulled out of my arse I think you'll find).
The overall entry standards are:
RHUL: 366 UCAS points
QMUL: 354 UCAS points
City: 340 UCAS points
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8726
If the percentage achieving a "good" degree was the only measure of how good a university is, then yes, it would indeed make Oxford better than Cambridge and Sussex better than ICL, Durham, LSE, Nottingham etc. But it isn't and I never claimed that it was. What I actually suggested was that there is a correlation between the percentage of graduates achieving a "good" degree and the reputation of a university, i.e. that it is one element of many that contributes towards a university's overall reputation.
Just as with the proportion of students achieving a "good" degree, teaching standards are an important part of a university's reputation, but not its entirety. LSE's reputation does suffer because of its notoriously poor teaching, but it makes up for it in other areas, such as its fantastic reputation for research. LSE is stronger than RHUL across more criteria and by a wider margin, therefore its overall reputation is better.
As for the objectivity/subjectivity of the QAA, all I can say is that it is based upon a standardised model. There may be some room for interpretation, but on the whole I maintain that it is objective. Moreover, it is beyond me how you think that the fact that it is independent, as opposed to internal, makes it less objective. Since you failed to give an explanation, I'll assume it's beyond you too.
Well done, you made a valid point, it's just a shame you had to be such a dick in the process.
Edit: Also, let me remind you, I'm talking about overall university reputation, not specific departments.
Original post by Ilustrius
Take these figures with a pinch of salt. Any figure has no correlation to earning potential.
I think what I shall be taking with a "pinch of salt", is your baseless conjecture if you don't mind.
Of course there is a correlation between the percentage of graduates in graduate level employment and earning potential. If you're in graduate level job it's highly likely that you are going to be earning more than somebody who is unemployed, or somebody in a non-graduate position. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can interpret this.
Original post by Ilustrius
What if the OP is from overseas, or intends to work overseas? Then it becomes important to distinguish between universities from different countries. And RHUL is an unknown quantity overseas, just as City and QMUL are.
You're grabbing at straws a little don't you think? There is no mention of international reputation or employment prospects outside of the UK in the OP. Regardless, any decent employer anywhere, can and almost always will, do some research on their applicants. A quick Google search of the university or "unknown quantity" in question would soon reveal that a Royal Holloway graduate studied at an institution significantly higher rated than QMUL and City in every single rankings table published in the UK.
Original post by Ilustrius
Based on common sense and basic interpolation, there is a strong correlation between entry standards and prestige. RHUL's entry standards are too low for it to be considered prestigious.
I have no problem with your first assertion here. However, while I accept a correlation between entry requirements and "prestige" exists, I do not accept that it is a prerequisite. Your argument constitutes a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Prestige is essentially how sought after and elusive places are. RHUL had almost 12000 applications for 2000 places last year, that's an applicants to places ratio of 6:1. This is higher than some top 10 universities and imo qualifies RHUL as "prestigious" under the common definition of the term.
Original post by Ilustrius
Where do you get your information from? Why do you feel so compelled to pull bull**** out of your arse?
Royal Holloway standard requirements: ABC or BBB.
QMUL requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, thus higher than RHUL)
City requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, again higher than RHUL)
http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/Studying/ug/applicationProcedure.html
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/entryrequirements/32159.html
http://www.city.ac.uk/study/courses/informatics/computer-science-bsc.html
There's my evidence. Now, where the hell is yours?
Royal Holloway standard requirements: ABC or BBB.
QMUL requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, thus higher than RHUL)
City requirements: 320 UCAS points (equivalent to ABB, again higher than RHUL)
http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/Studying/ug/applicationProcedure.html
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/entryrequirements/32159.html
http://www.city.ac.uk/study/courses/informatics/computer-science-bsc.html
There's my evidence. Now, where the hell is yours?
Allow me to point out two slight oversights on your part (I'll incredulously give you the benefit of the doubt): Firstly, it actually states in your own source "280-320 UCAS points". Secondly, even taking the higher figure, 320 UCAS points does not equate to ABB, unless an applicant had no fourth AS (which I imagine is a rarity). Assuming a candidate had a B in a fourth AS, 320 points would actually be closer to BBC - (Remarkably similar to that bull**** I pulled out of my arse I think you'll find).
The overall entry standards are:
RHUL: 366 UCAS points
QMUL: 354 UCAS points
City: 340 UCAS points
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8726
Original post by Ilustrius
Does that make Oxford a better University than Cambridge then? Because there are 91.8% of Oxford students who received a "good degree" last year compared to only 87.3% from Cambridge.
On a similar note, 80% of Sussex graduates had "good degrees". Does that make Sussex better than Imperial College, Durham, London School of Economics, Nottingham, York, Kings College, Warwick, Exeter, Bath and Manchester?
I would have thought not, wouldn't you agree?
On a similar note, 80% of Sussex graduates had "good degrees". Does that make Sussex better than Imperial College, Durham, London School of Economics, Nottingham, York, Kings College, Warwick, Exeter, Bath and Manchester?
I would have thought not, wouldn't you agree?
If the percentage achieving a "good" degree was the only measure of how good a university is, then yes, it would indeed make Oxford better than Cambridge and Sussex better than ICL, Durham, LSE, Nottingham etc. But it isn't and I never claimed that it was. What I actually suggested was that there is a correlation between the percentage of graduates achieving a "good" degree and the reputation of a university, i.e. that it is one element of many that contributes towards a university's overall reputation.
Original post by Ilustrius
Let me reiterate. What have teaching standards got to do with reputation? The London School of Economics are notorious for poor teaching standards, is Royal Holloway therefore more prestigious than the London School of Economics? Not a chance. And once again, you're wrong. Teaching standards are subjectively assessed. Being independently assessed makes it even more subjective.
Just as with the proportion of students achieving a "good" degree, teaching standards are an important part of a university's reputation, but not its entirety. LSE's reputation does suffer because of its notoriously poor teaching, but it makes up for it in other areas, such as its fantastic reputation for research. LSE is stronger than RHUL across more criteria and by a wider margin, therefore its overall reputation is better.
As for the objectivity/subjectivity of the QAA, all I can say is that it is based upon a standardised model. There may be some room for interpretation, but on the whole I maintain that it is objective. Moreover, it is beyond me how you think that the fact that it is independent, as opposed to internal, makes it less objective. Since you failed to give an explanation, I'll assume it's beyond you too.
Original post by Ilustrius
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/single.htm?ipg=8727
Read it and weep.
The average RHUL computer science student has fewer UCAS points than both City and QMUL computer science students.
You have been served.
Read it and weep.
The average RHUL computer science student has fewer UCAS points than both City and QMUL computer science students.
You have been served.
Well done, you made a valid point, it's just a shame you had to be such a dick in the process.
Edit: Also, let me remind you, I'm talking about overall university reputation, not specific departments.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Chucklefiend
**** .
Just to add to bother of your arguments
Computer Science UCAS points for Last year based on uni stats
the requirements your both looking at are for this year 2011/2012
:P kind gives you different opinion LOL
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by FinalMH
Just to add to bother of your arguments
Computer Science UCAS points for Last year based on uni stats
the requirements your both looking at are for this year 2011/2012
:P kind gives you different opinion LOL
Computer Science UCAS points for Last year based on uni stats
the requirements your both looking at are for this year 2011/2012
:P kind gives you different opinion LOL
I made it clear in my OP on this thread that I'm not a Computer Science student, and therefore, not in a position to give advice on the specific department:
"Surely it has to be Royal Holloway. I'm not familiar with reps for computer science, but in terms of overall rep RHUL is substantially above the other two."
All my comments and sources have all been aimed squarely at the overall reputations of the universities.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- picking between royal holloway and queen mary
- SOAS or City for law
- London Summer Accom Needed
- the best university for studying law
- Choice of Universitys
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- The Official QMUL Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- unsure with what to do
- What are the best London universities for Theoretical Physics?
- international student clearing
- HELP retaking lnat, reapplying for law next year
- Royal Holloway or Queen Mary for creative writing ?
- Getting into University without the typical GCSES..
- Retaking A-levels during gap year.
- Should I resit my A-levels?
- Bayes vs qmul for accounting and finance
- UEA vs RHUL
- City University of London 2023 Applicants Thread
- choosing A level options - please give some advice 😓
- low GCSE'S but high A-Levels
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 4 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 4 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?
