Imperial vs. Manchester

x

Imperial, without a shadow of a doubt.

It's way more prestigious, has far better job prospects, you'll be amongst more intelligent, more motivated students.

The only issue is cost/London, and that might tempt people into picking, say, Warwick/Durham/Bristol over Imperial, but Manchester is a step down from there.

I would only have turned down Imperial for UCL/Oxford/Cambridge.

I beg to differ.

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html (Scroll down for a list of 'top targeted' universities)

Imperial, without a shadow of a doubt.

It's way more prestigious, has far better job prospects, you'll be amongst more intelligent, more motivated students.

The only issue is cost/London, and that might tempt people into picking, say, Warwick/Durham/Bristol over Imperial, but Manchester is a step down from there.

I would only have turned down Imperial for UCL/Oxford/Cambridge.

I also applied to Durham and Bristol, but neither were as good as Imperial or Manchester.
The main issue I have with Imperial is the accommodation costs, which is why I am leaning towards Manchester, as it is so much cheaper. The Life Science Faculty at Manchester is huge, which brings the benefits of lots of choice regarding modules, placements as well as excellent facilities and academic staff. Manchester seemed friendlier than Imperial.
However, Imperial has an excellent reputation and is in the science hub of the UK. The university gets lots of funding for research and is obviously very science-orientated!

Don't be stupid.

That's just a ranking of how many firms pitch up to careers fairs, and has absolutely no say on how employers target universities.

Nobody is going to pick Warwick graduates over Oxbridge/Imperial graduates unless the Warwick ones actually proved themselves to be better.

Why else do you think that Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/UCL students enjoy access to prestigious careers which no other universities will grant access to? You won't find very many Sheffield students at the Bar in London, you won't find many at MC law firms, or at top banking jobs.

Look at the list again and tell me you managed not to burst out laughing.
Warwick
Nottingham
Manchester
Cambridge
Bristol
Durham
Oxford
Birmingham
Bath
Leeds
Sheffield
Imperial
Lougborough
LSE
UCL

Clearly LSE and UCL graduates are just sub-standard compared to the elite folks over at Sheffield

When Cambridge and Oxford take world top 5 spots for employer reputation (and overall reputation, too), you have to question a ranking's accuracy when they are placed #4 and #7 in the UK..

I'll ignore that slip of the tongue (or fingers).

Are you an employer? Answer me that. The university someone attends only reflects the individual to an extent, all the rest lies on the person. It is quite clear that the universities on that list are doing something right with their students.

Stop focusing so much on 'prestige', which may I add is quite subjective anyway. I'm not suggesting that any university is more 'sub-standard' than another, I am just refuting your claim that if the OP were to attend Imperial they would have 'far better job prospects'. I'm sure the difference is not as massive as your post implies. Especially seeing as Manchester is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to research and the sciences.

At the end of the day prestige, reputation, or whatever other factor alone doesn't necessarily lead to happiness, and happiness is what the OP should search for when deciding which university to attend.

Take Imperial. [...] There's very little debate to be had.

Don't be stupid.

That's just a ranking of how many firms pitch up to careers fairs, and has absolutely no say on how employers target universities.

Nobody is going to pick Warwick graduates over Oxbridge/Imperial graduates unless the Warwick ones actually proved themselves to be better.

Why else do you think that Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/UCL students enjoy access to prestigious careers which no other universities will grant access to? You won't find very many Sheffield students at the Bar in London, you won't find many at MC law firms, or at top banking jobs.

Look at the list again and tell me you managed not to burst out laughing.
Warwick
Nottingham
Manchester
Cambridge
Bristol
Durham
Oxford
Birmingham
Bath
Leeds
Sheffield
Imperial
Lougborough
LSE
UCL

Clearly LSE and UCL graduates are just sub-standard compared to the elite folks over at Sheffield

When Cambridge and Oxford take world top 5 spots for employer reputation (and overall reputation, too), you have to question a ranking's accuracy when they are placed #4 and #7 in the UK..

No, I'm not an employer, but I have enough experience with employers to know this to be the case.

Of course prestige is subjective, but it's no coincidence that Oxbridge will rank top in the country in any prestige ranking - employers respect the quality of their graduates, and offer them better jobs.

Perhaps the difference is not 'massive', but it can make or break entry into elite careers.

In essence, if two students go to different universities of different prestige, then the one at the better university will be able to get their foot in the door for more prestigious jobs. For those jobs which are open to both graduates, however, then the difference won't be so great.

e.g. you'll find a good mix of university backgrounds in teaching, or other careers to which students from worse universities have access, but judges/bankers/elite civil servants etc. will be dominated by the top universities.

I took issue mainly with you posting that table as some sort of reputable source of employer reputation, when clearly it's anything but.

So I'm glad you saw my link of employer reputation which placed Warwick at seventh in the world. I think Manchester was actually eight in the world for employment reputation. Not so glad that you deleted your post instead of replying back.
And...you'd take UCL instead of Imperial????
And as for Manchester University people being less intelligent, the university has produced more nobel prizes than any other British university after Oxbridge (25 of them), far more than Imperial. It has produced lots of heads of state, more than Imperial, and has produced great minds like Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher.

(There is an actual report floating around somewhere from which that information is sourced)

Who it produced in the past is somewhat irrelevant. Very few people will doubt that the average Imperial student nowadays will be smarter and better-trained than a Manchester student. There will be exceptions to the trend, like perhaps the OP, but the trend is very clear in academic achievement etc.

I said that the only universities I would take over Imperial would be Cambridge/Oxford/UCL. Not necessarily for Biology (perhaps I wasn't clear) although I am aware that UCL is good for Biology.

UCL is an example of where you might trade some enjoyability at university for slightly less prestige, so long as the drop is not too great - you can still access the same jobs from UCL as you can from Imperial. You cannot, however, from Manchester.

I might pick UCL over Imperial for Medicine or some of the natural sciences, but I suppose that UCL's strengths in Economics, languages etc. are not even offered by Imp



I've read the report, which is why I feel justified in criticising the table, as I believe it's very misleading.

Why is Manchester in the top ten of the world in the league table you referred to for employability?
And do you now admit that you were wrong regarding Warwick in the other thread?

They'll be infinitely nicer people though let's face it. Your condescending tone doesn't help either, Manchester is the university that pioneered Graphene and which first split the atom. Pipe down.