Imperial College VS Durham (chemisrty)

You cannot say this, there is alot of evidence that durham is at the very least comparable to IC for chemistry, there is no evidence that IC is alot better. Also Cambridge does chemistry as part of its natural sciences degree.

So where are your evidence???? Imperial is consistently ranked top 15 in the world for chemistry in(1) several league tables. (2)Imperial is more prestigious and more respected by employers. (3)Not saying Durham is bad, just saying that they are not in the same league as Imperial. Cambridge does not offer a pure Chemistry degree so can't really be compared with the ones offered by Oxford and Imperial.

(1)This first one is the biggest flaw in your argument...

(2)Which employers?

(3)How do you measure this? What's the accuracy? How do you know that that is an accurate measurement of who's better?

1.Source for these claims?

2. Source?

3. How do you know? Have you been to other parts of the world and mentioned the word "Imperial"? I think they would think it's from a Star Wars movie or something.

So where are your evidence???? Imperial is consistently ranked top 15 in the world for chemistry in several league tables. Imperial is more prestigious and more respected by employers. Not saying Durham is bad, just saying that they are not in the same league as Imperial. Cambridge does not offer a pure Chemistry degree so can't really be compared with the ones offered by Oxford and Imperial.

Firstly the burdan of proof is not on me since you made the +ve statement.

Firstly the burdan of proof is not on me since you made the +ve statement. I don't believe world league tables even rank specifically for chemistry. Also Durham beats imperial in the terestial league tables, so you would have to argue that the international ones are somehow superior, when the methologies of both look equally plausible.

Durham is in the same league as imperial.

Well no since you said there are lots of evidence that Durham is atleast on par with IC's. Yes they do, look at the QS where Imperial is ranked 9th in chemistry in 2011. People who are clever knows that the international ones are more reliable since they puts more emphasis on the academic sides of the institution.

'People who are clever knows'. Im not even going to bother pointing out the irony here. Needless to say if the International ones are so superior then there would be no need for the terestrial ones. With regards to the 'academic' side of the international one, a large proportion of these league tables are determined by which universities forgein proffesors think leads in their fields. Obviously this is not perfect methodology as useless factors such as prestige and size affect this choice, aswell as actual research and teaching quality.

You only favour the international ones because, you yourself go to IC rather than having an actual reason. Both league tables have flawed methology, and as someone who is taking a chemistry degree, you should know something about this.

What I would be interested in, is a direct comparison. Tell me what you have learnt in your first year at IC in chemistry, prove its so much more than what I have.

What do you mean i dont have a reason? I have stated them many times namely that their criteria reflects the actual quality of the institutions much more than the domestic ones which mainly focus on student satisfaction. This is why employers use the international ones rather than the domestic ones. All the domestic ones are a complete joke apart from the complete university guide. If you honestly think the domestic ones are more reliable than the international ones then I have nothing to say. I am sure it will be easier for you to list what you have learned rather than me listing them as you have less to write.

The focus on student satisfaction rate is overexagerated, and is no larger in proportion than the international focus on %international students, which is tbh a much more meaningless criterion. Like I say, you only claim the international ones are superior because you want to fit the evidence to the conclusions. The league tables are supposed to compliment each other, and durham outperforms IC on the domestic tables when measured by slightly different criteria. The bottom line is they are both similarly good universities in this subject.


You think I will have less to write? How arrogant of you to think that. Okay then more specifically, what have you covered in Structure and Bonding, have you for example solved the shroinger eq?

No it hasnt been exagerated at all look at the rankings done by the guardian. The amount of international student is a good measure as this shows how many student are willing to pay the higher fees for a degree and of course only a good university is worth paying the international fees. I am not biased towards IC like you are towards Durham, you keep objecting the international league tables just because Durham doesnt exist in it. And just to let you know we have done much more than just solving the schrodinger equation. This was done before Febuary.

This is just back and forth, I would claim you are similarly being biased towards the domestic tables. You claim the Student satisfaction is inaccurate because it has confounding variables, well so is %international student, that also has many counfounding variables as I have listed. You really dont have much of a case proving durham is not in the same league as IC.

Anyway We were using the shroinger equation before xmas, I really doubt you have done more than us. For example have you done a Research project? What kind of MO stuff have you done?

Oh I looked at your sylabus: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ugprospectus/facultiesanddepartments/chemistry/structure

Done everything on it and more, depsite only doing 1/3 Chemistry :P

So you can't point out any flaws in the international ones then can you?? Im sorry thats what I have been doing, sheesh you are worse than the creationistsWell let me point out a few on the domestic ones. Don't bother they all have flaws like I have already said They put too much focus on satisfaction and student staff ratio which in no way reflect the quality of a uni. I'd like to see you prove this In contrast, the worst criteria in the international ones are the no. of international student. This in a way do reflect the quality of a uni as the more international student a uni has, the better as they are paying about 5 times more than a home student. Speculation, you are trying to fit conclusions to evidence, bad practise for a chemist You asked me when we solved the schroding equation rather than the first time we encounter it. We used it before november to calculate the energy in anharmonic oscillators. Well seeing you done everything in my sylabus so early it must imply that you havent studied it in much depth which I am not surprised since you are at Durham. We have studied it in depthThis is gonna be my last reply as I dont have time to argue with you since I have got a lot of work to do unlike a typical durham student just chilling around for the whole easter holidays. Lol ye right, you do not have a clue how much work I do

Cant believe you are going to be a chemist, when you twist and misintepret evidence more than a typical homeopath.

But Lets ignore this for a second and look again at your content, do you really cover any reactions in organic apart from the basic Carbonyl, Alkene, Alkane stuff?

OK lets stop the argument, its not gonna end.

We did quite a bit on aromatics and stereochem

I dont want to continue an argument, a reasonable discussion on the conent would be much better.

Ye we did alot on areomatics and stereochem, did you do organometalic reagents like grinyard. We did alot of random reactions with mercury aswell which is funnily enough quite useful in organic chemistry.

Guys, Guys, CALM DOWN! Both Durham and Imperial's courses are likely to be very similar, and I can confirm that everything listed in the Imperial course was covered in the Durham course for 1/3 of the year, at least to some extent. I don't know much about the Imperial course at all so it may well go into more depth, but Durham's goes into more depth in the 2nd year when Imperial's probably learning stuff Durham people did in their 1st year...overall you're likely to learn the same stuff, give or take optional modules. The only way you could realistically compare is by completing your degrees choosing equivalent optional courses where possible and comparing total notes at the end.

As for league tables, the International ones rank Imperial significantly higher as it's the one more people have heard of, with it being in London. However, most people will stay in the UK and I doubt many employers will discriminate against either university.

Also, as a potential matter of interest, Cambridge's 1st year Chemistry course (1/4 of the year) covers more than Durham's Core 1A (1/3 of the year), but then again they have to juggle.