Which Universities would you say are similar to UCL?

Original post by nohaynada

I know UCL and KCL have "rivalry" is it because they are similar in prestige?

What about other Universities? Which are on the same level as UCL in terms of prestige/respect?

They're not similar in prestge.
I'd say Durham.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

alow

19

UCL>>>>KCL. It's not even close.

I'd say Imperial is pretty level with UCL.

Reply 4

Original post by alow

UCL>>>>KCL. It's not even close.

I'd say Imperial is pretty level with UCL.

Really? I'd say IC is more level wth LSE,

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

James222

3

Kings is much better, its at the cutting edge of medicine,dentistry and defence studies.

Any tom dick and harry can get into UCL
But for kings you need to have spend your lunch times on the fields of eton playing rugby and that hockey type game on those animals cowboys used

Reply 6

Original post by alow

UCL>>>>KCL. It's not even close.

I'd say Imperial is pretty level with UCL.

Original post by yl95

Really? I'd say IC is more level wth LSE,

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'd say

ICL > LSE >> UCL >>> KCL

Just for some early morning arbitrary university ranking :teehee:

Reply 7

Original post by Noble.

I'd say

ICL > LSE >> UCL >>> KCL

Just for some early morning arbitrary university ranking :teehee:

In terms of prestige?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

alow

19

Original post by yl95

Really? I'd say IC is more level wth LSE,

Posted from TSR Mobile

Hmm yeah you're probably right. KCL shouldn't even be in the conversation though. It's nowhere near either.

Reply 9

Original post by yl95

In terms of prestige?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah. Although on prestige/reputation it's also arguable LSE > ICL.

Reply 10

Zenomorph

3

I wouldn't similar in terms of prestige cause I think in only Oxbridge has true prestige.

But LSE and Imperial I'd say - why ?

Reply 11

Original post by Noble.

I'd say

ICL > LSE >> UCL >>> KCL

I don't understand why people say things like this. Imperial and LSE are specialist institutions, how can you begin to compare them with a multi-faculty university like UCL. You might say that LSE has a better law department or that Imperial has a better engineering dept but neither LSE nor Imperial do my subject, so how can they be better than UCL? :hmmmm2:

Reply 12

Original post by alow

Hmm yeah you're probably right. KCL shouldn't even be in the conversation though. It's nowhere near either.

I think the name 'King's' plays a large part in its reputation, plus it being im London. A lot of people do think that King's is really good -- as in /really/ good. It's obviously a decent place, though,

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

Original post by Samual

I don't understand why people say things like this. Imperial and LSE are specialist institutions, how can you begin to compare them with a multi-faculty university like UCL. You might say that LSE has a better law department or that Imperial has a better engineering dept but neither LSE nor Imperial do my subject, so how can they be better than UCL? :hmmmm2:

He's going off reputation as the OP asked about it. One could argue that LSE/Imperial are very strong in a greater proportion of their courses than UCL, hence this makes them better or something along those lines,

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

Original post by Samual

I don't understand why people say things like this. Imperial and LSE are specialist institutions, how can you begin to compare them with a multi-faculty university like UCL. You might say that LSE has a better law department or that Imperial has a better engineering dept but neither LSE nor Imperial do my subject, so how can they be better than UCL? :hmmmm2:

Which is why I said that it was an arbitrary ranking. Obviously an overall league table is completely pointless when you want subject specific information, I was just giving my view on what the difference is in terms of reputation/prestige.

Reply 15

Original post by yl95

He's going off reputation as the OP asked about it. One could argue that LSE/Imperial are very strong in a greater proportion of their courses than UCL, hence this makes them better or something along those lines,

Reputation alone... what does that mean? I'm not even sure what you said makes sense. One could argue just as easily that UCL is better because it has a greater variety of world-leading depts. You can't compare LSE, UCL and Imperial, they're just too different - anyone who tries to isn't worth talking to.

Original post by Noble.

Obviously an overall league table is completely pointless when you want subject specific information, I was just giving my view on what the difference is in terms of reputation/prestige.

Ridiculous. How can you compare 'overall prestige' when that prestige is based on individual subjects, few of which are shared by all three universities?

Reply 16

Original post by Samual

Ridiculous. How can you compare 'overall prestige' when that prestige is based on individual subjects, few of which are shared by all three universities?

Except they're not. A lot of the big 'world rankings' have nothing to do with respecting individual subjects (i.e. QS World Rankings) but instead compile a list based on, largely, useless data. I put "arbitrary" ranking in my post entirely to avoid this kind of pointless discussion.

Reply 17

Original post by Noble.

Except they're not. A lot of the big 'world rankings' have nothing to do with respecting individual subjects (i.e. QS World Rankings) but instead compile a list based on, largely, useless data. I put "arbitrary" ranking in my post entirely to avoid this kind of pointless discussion.

I don't care what world rankings lists say. You mentioned prestige; university league tables have in my view very little to do with the assigning of prestige. The Bartlett at UCL is a prestigious place to study not because an obscure rankings list says so, but because employers, academics and 'normal' people recognise it to be so.

If you want to avoid these 'pointless discussions' in future then you would be well advised not to post silly things. The fact you were aware it was silly and pointless at the time of posting does not excuse you, you still said it.

Reply 18

Original post by Samual

I don't care what world rankings lists say. You mentioned prestige; university league tables have in my view very little to do with the assigning of prestige. The Bartlett at UCL is a prestigious place to study not because an obscure rankings list says so, but because employers, academics and 'normal' people recognise it to be so.

If you want to avoid these 'pointless discussions' in future then you would be well advised not to post silly things. The fact you were aware it was silly and pointless at the time of posting does not excuse you, you still said it.

I said what, my own pointless ranking? All non subject-specific rankings are pointless, but it hasn't stopped them being published year after year. You can pick holes at any overall ranking, and most subject specific ones, and, if anything, my own ranking was based on which I think are more 'well-known' internationally. The only reason world-rankings came into the discussion was because you were, incorrectly, under the impression that subject specific rankings are directly a major part in overall-rankings, I wasn't trying to imply prestige is based on league tables.

Reply 19