The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Overrated: DEFINITELY UCL and KCL, and Edinburgh. Especially in the league tables lol.

Honestly, besides Oxbridge, Imperial is the only university in my eyes that has a solid/stable university environment.

I mean UCL isn't a bad uni of course.

I find it quite annoying when individuals talk about how wonderful it is because its so close to Oxbridge on the league tables blah blah it really isn't that great.

It has a poor sciences/maths department/not all that spectacular teaching, yet still requires the same (if not higher) high entry requirements Oxbridge requires in its conditional offers.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 241
I feel like Sheffield is a fairly underrated university, it goes pretty unnoticed in the UK. It might have to do with the national rankings that it is estimated to be a top 30 university, although it consistently ranks top 100 in the world.
Original post by frognation22
Overrated: DEFINITELY UCL and KCL, and Edinburgh. Especially in the league tables lol.

Honestly, besides Oxbridge, Imperial is the only university in my eyes that has a solid/stable university environment.

I mean UCL isn't a bad uni of course.

I find it quite annoying when individuals talk about how wonderful it is because its so close to Oxbridge on the league tables blah blah it really isn't that great.

It has a poor sciences/maths department/not all that spectacular teaching, yet still requires the same (if not higher) high entry requirements Oxbridge requires in its conditional offers.


Actually, UCL's entry requirements are pretty low. It's Imperial's that can sometimes be higher than Oxbridge's.
Original post by frognation22
Overrated: DEFINITELY UCL and KCL, and Edinburgh. Especially in the league tables lol.

Honestly, besides Oxbridge, Imperial is the only university in my eyes that has a solid/stable university environment.

I mean UCL isn't a bad uni of course.

I find it quite annoying when individuals talk about how wonderful it is because its so close to Oxbridge on the league tables blah blah it really isn't that great.

It has a poor sciences/maths department/not all that spectacular teaching, yet still requires the same (if not higher) high entry requirements Oxbridge requires in its conditional offers.


what makes its maths department not good?
What's everyone's issue with UCL?!
Original post by yl95
I recall you saying elsewhere in the forum that you have an offer. Apologies for not picking up the sarcasm although there are some really arrogant people around so you can't tell sometimes...


Lol So true! :biggrin:
Thanks for the replies.... :frown:
Original post by wdkmwd
Let's talk about which Universities you in your opinion are the most overrated and Underrated.


It's very subjective and depending on the definition of the rating. Usually, people rate universities based on 1. how smart students/graduates are, 2. how great their research outcomes are, 3. how great their historical contributions to civilisation have been. Handful universities like Oxbridge, HYPSM etc satisfy all conditions, but the vast majority of the universities on our planet lack one of (or some of) them. And here comes the problem of "overrated" and "underrated".

For example, UCL, being often mentioned here, has very high research standards and its historical contributions to science and world politics/culture have been massive. However its selectivity/entry standards haven't been as impressive as its other elements (mostly behind Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE/st Andrews/Durham recently, and out of top 10 before 2010). So for the people who rate universities mainly based on the first element, UCL seems oddly overrated.

On the other hand, the other universities like St Andrews/Durham are selective but not having impressive research outputs and/or historical presence. So for the people who think universities should be rated based on research qualities and/or history, such universities look unnaturally overrated.

Strictly speaking, even Oxford can be seen as overrated in terms of entry standards (because Cambridge is more difficult to get in most cases), or Cambridge can be overrated when it comes to political/cultural influence compared to Oxford.

So my answer is all universities are overrated and underrated to some extent, and because there are no fixed perceptions of how universities must be evaluated, this type of discussion will never be concluded (research fundamentalists and selectivity fundamentalists will never shake hands with each other. very similar to religious war).
.
Original post by yl95
Actually, UCL's entry requirements are pretty low. It's Imperial's that can sometimes be higher than Oxbridge's.


Yes good point. I've seen some subjects that will accept you with AAB, but what I've also found interesting is that for its more competitive subjects-sometimes it requires higher entry requirements than Oxbridge does.

Im assuming it would be higher than Oxbridge in these areas because Oxbridge has already evaluated the candidates' intelligence thru the interviews, and thus doesn't need to require an A* sometimes like I've seen UCL do.
Well it's certainly not terrible, but mathematics and physical sciences is most definitely not UCL's strongest suit-- it's better in the humanities. The science departments tend to lack funding, great teaching, quite scrambled and more. I thought I was the only one who noticed this during open day, but after seeing some TSR reviews, I guess I wasn't the only one who did hm.

Original post by Frantichinos
what makes its maths department not good?
Overrated: Warwick
Underrated: Aston, Lancaster

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by frognation22
Yes good point. I've seen some subjects that will accept you with AAB, but what I've also found interesting is that for its more competitive subjects-sometimes it requires higher entry requirements than Oxbridge does.


The lowest Entry requirement at UCL is ABB (Education/Urban Planning/Urban Studies/Project Management for Construction/Fine art/East European History/Scandinavian/Dutch/Jewish etc. also there are many courses with AAB-ABB requirements). It's a huge university with 5,500+ undergraduate students every year. The range of academic achievement is vary.

UCL had better reduce its undergraduate students (and increase postgraduate students instead), just like
Columbia university with 8,410 undergraduates and 19,532 postgraduates, that I found very wise in terms of brand strategies.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TeaAndTextbooks
Overrated: Warwick
Underrated: Aston, Lancaster

Posted from TSR Mobile


Original post by bj1
Imperial. I was having second thoughts for not applying there, because of its reputation, £5000 bursary and for the course I was interested in, 'Environmental Biology and Ecology', it had lower requirements than Natural Sciences which I had applied for elsewhere. However upon looking at the employment figures for that course, only ~75% were employed/further study after 6 months which is worrying since it was a decent sample size, too (~100), this figure is usually over 85-90%. I can only guess that it's because it may be a new course or they specialise quite a lot in the maths/physics/engineering side of things which they are known for, but not so much biology.

This UCL bashing is quite worrying too, I have an offer from them for natural sciences and from Durham too, my top two choices. I wonder what is wrong exactly (except for the extortionate rent which I have heard about) or are they students from a 'rival' university by any chance?

I'd say Nottingham and Manchester for being underrated. I think the only reason for their lower ranking is because they have so many students and such a wide range of courses, but they deserve more recognition.

Warwick is an interesting one... I didn't apply there but the people I know who did apply got offers from them within a few weeks, but seem to have written them off completely, for various reasons including 'it's too modern', 'ugly', 'prison-like, terrible accommodation'. Perhaps its underrated in some regard? It claims to have always been in the top 10 since records began but I don't know many who have it as a first choice.


UCL are fine for natural sciences and even subjects like CivEng dw, They are just much better in humanities and arts than they are in sciences.

People bash UCL likely because students, and the university itself go on like they're the best thing since sliced bread and just behind oxbridge for everything, when in reality they're mediocre in most science based subjects. I pushed my sibling to firm UCL but had they been pursuing something like Engineering i'd have advised them to avoid that university like its the plague.

Also if you ever want to go into banking UCL is a target.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by bj1
However upon looking at the employment figures for that course, only ~75% were employed/further study after 6 months which is worrying since it was a decent sample size, too (~100), this figure is usually over 85-90%.


Though I'm not familiar with this subject, it seems Graduate Prospect score in Biological studies is low in general. According to CUG, aside from Cambridge and Robert Gordon, all universities are below 80% (Imperial 79%, Oxford 78%, Durham 76%, UCL 73%). Plus it's not so accurate index as CUG says "A relatively low score on this measure does not mean that many graduates were unemployed. It may be that some had low-level jobs such as shop assistants, which do not normally recruit graduates. Some universities recruit a high proportion of local students and so if they are located in an area where graduate jobs are hard to come by this can depress the outcome".

Original post by bj1
This UCL bashing is quite worrying too, I have an offer from them for natural sciences and from Durham too, my top two choices. I wonder what is wrong exactly (except for the extortionate rent which I have heard about) or are they students from a 'rival' university by any chance?


Like I posted before and some other people also mentioned, It's simply not as selective as its prestige. I guess that's basically the main reason. It's a large university with over 35,000+ students ranging from A*A*A* to ABB, so unlikely Oxbridge/Imperial, being a UCL student doesn't automatically prove you are a master race of academics. But I don't think STEM students at UCL are disrespected in most cases. Mostly people (and recruiters perhaps) will show some respect like "you must be smart" if they know you are studying some natural science at UCL.

Original post by Oilfreak1
UCL are fine for natural sciences and even subjects like CivEng dw, They are just much better in humanities and arts than they are in sciences.

People bash UCL likely because students, and the university itself go on like they're the best thing since sliced bread and just behind oxbridge for everything, when in reality they're mediocre in most science based subjects. I pushed my sibling to firm UCL but had they been pursuing something like Engineering i'd have advised them to avoid that university like its the plague.


UCL is also excellent in Medical studies. For example, the percentage of papers published in top 20% journals of Medical fields is 97%, which is even higher than Harvard(96.9%) and Johns Hopkins(91.4%) according to ARWU (and 8th best in the world in terms of total research outputs). Without a doubt it's the strongest field at UCL.

UCL reminds me NYU a lot. Both universities are located in hearts of nations' economy, target unis for City/Wall street. Some subjects/departments are one of the best(Law/Econ/Med at UCL and Phil/Math/Econ/Business at NYU) but some are not(Engineering at both unis). not as highly selective as other top universities on average because of their "size", but very popular nationwide. Famous for quality of social life and rich extracurricular activities easily making students feel their universities have unique and special values that other top universities don't have.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RussellG
Though I'm not familiar with this subject, it seems Graduate Prospect score in Biological studies seem to low in general. According to CUG, aside from Cambridge and Robert Gordon, all universities are below 80% (Imperial 79%, Oxford 78%, Durham 76%, UCL 73%). Plus it's not so accurate index as CUG says "A relatively low score on this measure does not mean that many graduates were unemployed. It may be that some had low-level jobs such as shop assistants, which do not normally recruit graduates. Some universities recruit a high proportion of local students and so if they are located in an area where graduate jobs are hard to come by this can depress the outcome".


The user pinched that data from the UniStats website for that specific course, not from CUG's grad prospects metric. I believe they give a breakdown of graduate level vs non-graduate level on top of the career fields students end up in.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
The user pinched that data from the UniStats website for that specific course, not from CUG's grad prospects metric. I believe they give a breakdown of graduate level vs non-graduate level on top of the career fields students end up in.


Yeah, it seems you are right. it looks much more useful data than CUG's one. :smile:

Although employment rate of this course at Imperial is indeed oddly bad, I noticed the average salary six months after the course(£25,000) is much higher than biology courses at other rival universities(Oxford(£21,000),UCL(£22,000),Durham(£16,000)). So maybe they are aiming higher than students at other universities...?
Reply 257
Original post by RussellG
Though I'm not familiar with this subject, it seems Graduate Prospect score in Biological studies is low in general. According to CUG, aside from Cambridge and Robert Gordon, all universities are below 80% (Imperial 79%, Oxford 78%, Durham 76%, UCL 73%).
".

Like I posted before and some other people also mentioned, It's simply not as selective as its prestige. I guess that's basically the main reason. It's a large university with over 35,000+ students ranging from A*A*A* to ABB, so unlikely Oxbridge/Imperial, being a UCL student doesn't automatically prove you are a master race of academics. But I don't think STEM students at UCL are disrespected in most cases. Mostly people (and recruiters perhaps) will show some respect like "you must be smart" if they know you are studying some natural science at UCL.


Thanks for such a detailed reply! As Princepieman correctly stated I got the info from Unistats.

The selectivity issue doesn't apply as much since Natural sciences requires A*AA (!) however I wanted to know more about the student experience and what the staff are like. It seems like a research powerhouse for science, you hear of UCL quite a lot on all kinds of research but the impression I have got on here so far is that perhaps this has an impact on the quality of undergraduate teaching? There didn't seem to be a 'centralised' organisation when I visited (someone did mention earlier), so I worried about making friends other than in halls, hard to meet up with people,etc...
Many say that if you don't enjoy it, you won't do well, others say choose a better course/place and suffer a bit and it'll be better long term!

Referring to your later post... Perhaps Imperial's salary is higher because they decide to stay in London - e.g. research positions available, etc? While Durham's biology salary is low in comparison, like you say it depends on what the students go for, AFAIK it is just as targeted by employers than other top unis for 'graduate' jobs. Also, I have applied for Natural sciences which is higher than the single science.

To be quite honest the reason why I ask is because parental (and their friends) pressure (but not peer pressure) is leaning towards UCL because they have 'heard of it' and that in the news it always pops up (I.e. Research) and as for Durham* they say outside this country 'nobody has heard of it'. However after visiting both I just felt more comfortable in the closer college atmosphere at Durham and the academic departments seemed decently 'rigorous' enough, particularly for Earth science which I plan to do alongside Biology in Nat,Sci. I wanted to know if UCL was academically miles superior but interestingly it doesn't seem to have cracked up to be. Which is a shame really.

(*of course as well as Durham I'd say this similarly applies to other good universities not in big cities e.g. Exeter, York, Bath, etc, (but not St Andrews thanks to two famous alumni :rolleyes:)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RussellG
The lowest Entry requirement at UCL is ABB (Education/Urban Planning/Urban Studies/Project Management for Construction/Fine art/East European History/Scandinavian/Dutch/Jewish etc. also there are many courses with AAB-ABB requirements). It's a huge university with 5,500+ undergraduate students every year. The range of academic achievement is vary.

UCL had better reduce its undergraduate students (and increase postgraduate students instead), just like
Columbia university with 8,410 undergraduates and 19,532 postgraduates, that I found very wise in terms of brand strategies.


Yes I very much agree with you! I quite like how American private universities have a small undergraduate population and a large graduate population/how the academic achievement in these universities does not vary like it would at a school like UCL or LSE. There's such a wide level of academic achievement at our universities (Oxbridge and Imperial being exceptions) because our admissions isn't central. As a result, sometimes its harder to generalise them like many would when it comes to North American schools in my opinion

I actually think this is one of the reasons why I was reluctant to stay in the UK for uni- I quite like being in an environment where there is less variety when it comes to academic achievement- yet strangely enough, I never tried to apply to Oxbridge and Imperial and frankly, I'm now regretting it indeed. -sigh-
(edited 7 years ago)
Thanks for such a detailed reply! As Princepieman correctly stated I got the info from Unistats.

The selectivity issue doesn't apply as much since Natural sciences requires A*AA (!) however I wanted to know more about the student experience and what the staff are like. It seems like a research powerhouse for science, you hear of UCL quite a lot on all kinds of research but the impression I have got on here so far is that perhaps this has an impact on the quality of undergraduate teaching? There didn't seem to be a 'centralised' organisation when I visited (someone did mention earlier), so I worried about making friends other than in halls, hard to meet up with people,etc...
Many say that if you don't enjoy it, you won't do well, others say choose a better course/place and suffer a bit and it'll be better long term!

Referring to your later post... Perhaps Imperial's salary is higher because they decide to stay in London - e.g. research positions available, etc? While Durham's biology salary is low in comparison, like you say it depends on what the students go for, AFAIK it is just as targeted by employers than other top unis for 'graduate' jobs. Also, I have applied for Natural sciences which is higher than the single science.

To be quite honest the reason why I ask is because parental (and their friends) pressure (but not peer pressure) is leaning towards UCL because they have 'heard of it' and that in the news it always pops up (I.e. Research) and as for Durham* they say outside this country 'nobody has heard of it'. However after visiting both I just felt more comfortable in the closer college atmosphere at Durham and the academic departments seemed decently 'rigorous' enough, particularly for Earth science which I plan to do alongside Biology in Nat,Sci. I wanted to know if UCL was academically miles superior but interestingly it doesn't seem to have cracked up to be. Which is a shame really.

(*of course as well as Durham I'd say this similarly applies to other good universities not in big cities e.g. Exeter, York, Bath, etc, (but not St Andrews thanks to two

What did you like about Durham Earth Science? As for UCL I visited recently and it does seem like a good uni academically but I was disappointed with the accommodation especially with the price of living in London, seems to be higher on the international leaderboards than it does on the national ones

Latest