The Top 10 UK Universities

Do the research yourself, rather than being spoon fed. The Russell Group website is easy enough to find at least.

Obviously it varies by subject. But, in your opinion, what are the top 10 universities in the UK, overall? (Re: prestige/job prospects/everything).

I was more focused on the first 7. Too many people are ranking UCL low and considering it is on a mass expansion of its academic infrastructure(it is buying up a lot of colleges around London) and has one of the best global reputations I think it deserves a no. 4 spot followed by imperial, oxford and Cambridge. In addition to that Manchester has been somewhat sidelined but when you consider it's global reputation and research development I think it definitely deserves it's position in that respect. Then of course Durham and warwick come in to it.

It was just after reading post after post it was one of the most accurate in my opinion. But you are right when it comes to Edinburgh and Bristol deserving a place no doubt.

Oxford
Cambridge
Imperial
Lse
Ucl
Bristol
Edinburgh
Kcl
Manchester
Warwick

Expansion is not actually a sign of prestige. In education, it is more likely to be a sign of prestige going to be lowered as it means any tom, dick and harry can get it. It would stop being a place of the creme de la creme. It will be a BMW, not a Ferrari which is more rare to see.

Manchester and UCL will suffer prestige loss because of their increasing size as they will have to dilute their entry standard a bit to capture their student capacity. Although UCL is still the 5th best university in the UK. Behind Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

Durham will also be expanding places soon. There is a danger that UCL and Durham may slip in entry standards overall, but likewise they may just pinch the best students who might have gone elsewhere. The concern should be for other universities, as there is too much competition.

Maybe Durham is small enough to afford some expansion without a drop in standard. It is mid-sized.

UCL was already at a good size and is now expanding further. It risks ending up like Manchester and Nottingham. Top universities, but too big to maintain high standards.

I doubt UCL has the prestige attached to cream the students from other top universities outside the Top 4 (Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial). Many people still pick Durham/Warwick/Bristol etc over UCL in the last few years, when it was actually smaller.

I think it is more likely to end up like Manchester but better. It would be a top research university that rides high in global rankings but way too big to be only filled by top students. That is what Manchester is right now.

Obviously it varies by subject. But, in your opinion, what are the top 10 universities in the UK, overall? (Re: prestige/job prospects/everything).

If we look at it based on the criteria in your post:

PRESTIGE

Times Higher reputation rankings (by Academics)
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking

1. Cambridge
2. Oxford
3. Imperial
4. LSE
5. UCL
6. KCL
7. Edinburgh
8. Manchester

Reputation with CEOs and Chairmen of
http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

1. Cambridge
2. Oxford
3. UCL
4. Imperial
5. Edinburgh
6. Manchester
7. KCL
8. LSE
9. Birmingham
10. Nottingham

Previous year's reputation rankings.
http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#12409920
http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#13315652


JOB PROSPECTS

Average graduate starting salaries
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9532912/Best-universities-for-high-starting-salaries.html?frame=2334382

1. LSE
2. Imperial
3. UCL
4. Cambridge
5. KCL
6. Oxford
7. QMW
8. City

Graduate Prospects (% getting graduate level jobs in 6 months)
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects

1. Imperial
2. Cambridge
3. Bath
4. Durham
5. KCL
6. Robert Gordon
7. UCL
8. Birmingham
9. St Andrews
10. Newcastle


EVERYTHING ELSE

Then look at the overall Shanghai, Times Higher and QS universities rankings:

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014


Look at recent REF outcomes:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/dec/18/university-research-excellence-framework-2014-full-rankings


I think based on your specifications, the universities most frequently in the top 10 are Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, UCL, KCL, Edinburgh and Manchester.

Those are definitely 8 in the top 10, then you need to add 2 more universities to make it complete.

In my opinion:

Domestic impact -
Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, King's, Imperial, Warwick, St Andrews, Edinburgh, LSE

International impact -
Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, King's, Imperial, Warwick, Edinburgh, Manchester, LSE, Glasgow

KCL indeed is a good bet for the top 10 based on international standing, but the top graduate employers don't see it that way. Most people still regard it as a top 20 university.

Students from the best schools and employers. I have already given two sources in this thread. Graduate High Fliers Research and the leading Sevenoaks Independent school. Neither targeted KCL as top 10.

Well, I guess you should go outside of the UK once in a while to get a glimpse of what people in other countries think of top British unis.

You're right -- I'm a Warwick grad myself. But I'm not British, and from where I come from, Warwick is seen very prestigious, surely in the league of those unis you've mentioned.

My Warwick undergrad degree led me to an Ivy school for my grad studies. Based on personal and anecdotal experience, Warwick is surely not seen short like what you tried to imply.

And, for the record, I passed up my LSE admissions (BSc Management) for the same program at Warwick. I'm pretty sure there were several others who did the same in my class alone. Two other American friends of mine chose Warwick over Imperial for maths.




I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't find King's College prestigious. I agree it is respected. But I don't think it has the brand cache of Warwick brand name, specially in the business community.

As far as I am concern, people in the business world/banking/financial world are much more prestige conscious than people who work in different sectors, for they give more premium to their recruits. And, in the business community world-wide, Warwick is considered a prestigious brand name -- well within the top 20 in Europe. At places like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, BofA, Blackstone, Citi, and the like, the Warwick name rings a bell. The top bulge bracket fimrs regularly send representatives to Warwick campus with a sole purpose of recruiting Warwick graduates. I don't think the same companies are doing the same thing for King's graduates. The top recruiters around the world haven't possibly even heard of King's, more so regard it as prestigious.



Again, in the business community, Warwick is considered as respected as LSE, and Imperial, and is seen more respected than UCL.

Take the Financial Times' ranking for the best business program in the world. Warwick placed 25 globally, and was even ranked higher than UCLA, Cornell, Virginia, to name a few, considering these are some of the best schools for business in America.

http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2014

Maybe Durham is small enough to afford some expansion without a drop in standard. It is mid-sized.

UCL was already at a good size and is now expanding further. It risks ending up like Manchester and Nottingham. Top universities, but too big to maintain high standards.

I doubt UCL has the prestige attached to cream the students from other top universities outside the Top 4 (Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial). Many people still pick Durham/Warwick/Bristol etc over UCL in the last few years, when it was actually smaller.

I think it is more likely to end up like Manchester but better. It would be a top research university that rides high in global rankings but way too big to be only filled by top students. That is what Manchester is right now.

What makes you say that? Entry requirements are comparable to other top unis others than the top 3/4.

Like I said, you need to go out of the UK once in a while to be able to widen your views.
UCL is a good and respected institution, but it isn't superior to - and could hardly compete - with the likes of:

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
3. MIT
4. Yale
5. UC Berkeley
6. Princeton
7. Caltech
8. Chicago
9. Columbia
10. UPenn
11. Duke
12. Cornell
13. Oxrford
14. Cambridge

That's already 14 unis, which I can confidently say are superior to UCL, for they are better funded, are able to attract the best faculty, more selective, have the more competitive students, and have better facilities and resources. UCL couldn't match any of those schools in that list. Thus to say UCL is #5 in the world is plain nonsense.

If it isn't well-known, why then have I heard about it, given that I am not British and have not studied in England before coming to Warwick? As a matter of fact, about a quarter of Warwick students are from outside the UK. If it isn't well-known like you're asserting, why then has it able to attract that many international students, all of them are some of the very best students in their respective countries, as Warwick's entry requirements for international students are very high?

Now, if you don't think I'm talking with substance, consider the feeder schools of Harvard Business School, the number one and most respected business school in the world. Harvard publishes its feeder schools annually, and never have I seen a year where Warwick was out of the list.
Here's the list for this year:
http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/undergraduate-institutions.aspx

As you can see, Warwick appears in the list. For 3 consecutive years before this, no one has gotten in from UCL. If you do have access to HBS Class of 2016 on FB, you would know that four of this year's class are from Warwick, and only one each from Imperial and UCL while 2 from LSE, Oxford and 3 from Cambridge. Again, the numbers of HBS admits can be accessed on their FB group. If you do know anyone from HBS, he would readily tell you that the numbers I provided were accurate.

That said, I am neither asserting nor suggesting that Warwick is superior to Imperial, LSE or UCL. I am saying, that where it matters (prestige and respectability of the university name, in this case), Warwick can head-to-head and toe-to-toe with LSE, Imperial and UCL, that is a full contradictory to your controversial assertion that Warwick is inferior to the three London unis, and the Warwick name has no recognition outside of the UK.

I'm not sure about that again.
I've had plenty of American friends who would be very much willing to break an arm to win a seat at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and/or a seat at Cambridge as a Gates Scholar. I never heard anyone - at least from my circles - to have the same passion and enthusiasm to win a seat at LSE. I'm not saying LSE has no name recognition in America. I've lived in America - In fact, I'm an American passport holder myself and have lived in both Coasts -- but I have never gotten the impression that LSE's reputation in America is unrivalled, like you suggested.

Warwick reminds me of Juventus F.C; one of the European heavyweights but unappreciated and unfamiliar to the general public.

I don't understand why Imperial is consistently rated lower than Oxford. In terms of courses, 8 out of 14 of the main courses offered at Imperial are ranked higher according to the ukcompleteuniversityguide. Most of the subjects in which Imperial, is not ranked higher, they are only 1 or 2 positions away (apart from medicine). Imperial is higher in the QS world ranking as well as in this year's research assessment exercise. They are also higher than Oxford for graduate salary as well. As far as I am concerned, Imperial is on the same tier as Oxbridge. I can imagine it being similar for UCL and LSE.

I think that Warwick is definitely overall the better university than Kings, however Lancaster outperforms in terms of; higher academic students drawn to it, its reputation, research power, amount of better degrees obtained and teaching prowess, about a third of the russell group (I'm looking at Liverpool, Queen Mary, Queens Belfast, Cardiff and a few others). Remember that Russell group unis are literally just a group of research intensive unis and therefore have a decent rep for being a part of that group, however there are still a fair few unis better than members of the Russell group who are simply not as research intensive or a part of it. e.g. up until 2010, Durham and Exeter (I think it was 2010) were not part of the Russell group, however before that 2010 they were still recognised as premium unis outperforming the majority of that group.

Also Durham is possibly better at humanities/ attracts better students but its definitely the case that UCL is a more well respected institution. It's branding as a super premium uni being exemplified by the fact that its a member of the G5

You can't put KCL in this ''London'' company. KCL versus Yale? Not a chance. UCL verus Yale? Not that much difference, but Yale wins.