the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham

Reply 5

username4583724

OP

13

Original post by A Rolling Stone

the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham

What about UCL

Reply 6

A Rolling Stone

20

Original post by Varun_17

What about UCL

UCL is one of those unis whose prestige lies in its reputation as a research powerhouse rather than being particularly selective for undergrad. i think selectivity is a far better indicator of prestige than research output - for example top Liberal Arts colleges in the US.

For maths specifically I would put UCL on par with with Durham, a bit below if we're really splitting hairs.

Reply 7

mnot

Universities Forum Helper

20

Original post by Varun_17

Rank these Unis-
Cambridge
Durham
Imperial College London
Oxford
St Andrews
UCL
Warwick

Oxford / Cambridge
Imperial
Warwick
UCL / Durham / St Andrews

Original post by A Rolling Stone

the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham

I would disagree. That'll use A-levels - which are not a good indicator of mathematical ability, hence the adoption of MAT/STEP/TMUA instead. STEP results will probably be the best indication of these, but these are obviously not formal qualifications so won't be recorded like this.

Reply 9

mnot

Universities Forum Helper

20

Original post by A Rolling Stone

UCL is one of those unis whose prestige lies in its reputation as a research powerhouse rather than being particularly selective for undergrad. i think selectivity is a far better indicator of prestige than research output - for example top Liberal Arts colleges in the US.

For maths specifically I would put UCL on par with with Durham, a bit below if we're really splitting hairs.

Whilst its true UCL is a research powerhouse, its still very selective at undergrad. Its considered elite academically across the board, its certainly more known subject wise for the arts/humanities (and Imperial is more known for STEM) but they are both elite in all sectors as universities.

Reply 10

A Rolling Stone

20

Original post by _gcx

I would disagree. That'll use A-levels - which are not a good indicator of mathematical ability, hence the adoption of MAT/STEP/TMUA instead. STEP results will probably be the best indication of these, but these are obviously not formal qualifications so won't be recorded like this.

STEP would be great if all unis mentioned required it, was taken on more than one occasion and if the data was published! so we just have to go on where the general 'top' students are going for now

Reply 11

A Rolling Stone

20

Original post by mnot

Whilst its true UCL is a research powerhouse, its still very selective at undergrad. Its considered elite academically across the board, its certainly more known subject wise for the arts/humanities (and Imperial is more known for STEM) but they are both elite in all sectors as universities.

that true but for maths the UCAS tariffs are a bit less than the other unis implying slightly lower grades/less further maths students perhaps. as i said this is asperger's-level splitting of hairs here!

Of these roughly speaking:

•

Cambridge

•

Oxford

•

Warwick and Imperial are about the same and are the two standard destinations for those who got rejected from Oxbridge. Warwick is typically stronger in research, (sometimes coming second between Cambridge/Oxford in intl rankings) but ranking one over the other for undergrad will probably come down to personal experience.

•

UCL

I think Durham/St. Andrews are around the same. I don't think they're generally considered "on the same tier" as those above. Bath/Bristol might be worth researching.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 13

NotNotBatman

20

Original post by Varun_17

As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs

Level of difficulty doesn't really make sense.
Real rankings is ambiguous.
Student satisfaction is not BS for its target audience.

Seems to me that you're looking for an objective answer to a question which inherently has subjective answers.

Reply 14

zetamcfc

19

Original post by Varun_17

As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs

Not really a thing. Only thing you could do is rank how much detail each course of the same name goes into I guess.

Original post by NotNotBatman

Level of difficulty doesn't really make sense.
Real rankings is ambiguous.
Student satisfaction is not BS for its target audience.

Seems to me that you're looking for an objective answer to a question which inherently has subjective answers.

In defence of point 1 and 3:

1.

Not all degree courses are created equal, some will cover the content faster and go in more depth than others. It's important that the OP takes a degree course with a difficulty suitable for them so I think this is a sensible consideration.

2.

I think it's possible to give too much weight to student satisfaction and I'd say only pay attention to it if it's abnormally low. (which would be a concern even if the institution is academically strong, for example might indicate that their research is good but student support/teaching poor) Minor differences probably aren't indicative of anything. People at "top tier" universities will have quite high expectations of their course, the university, and its facilities so you might expect them to be lower. In any case, I think the main problem is that for most people, that university is the only one they've been to, they have no points of comparison so wouldn't be able to tell if stuff was comparatively sub-par unless it was a glaring problem. I think more concrete metrics generally are better for this reason.

Yeah unfortunately there are no objective answers when it comes to this sort of thing. Rankings are good for generally placing universities in your head but then differentiating between them for choices it's a poor method. I think by real rankings they were referring to those that did not overwhelmingly weight non-academic factors. (such as The Guardian) There is no substitute for first hand research into degree courses you're interested in. (looking at module catalogues, visiting the uni, talking to students)

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 16

NotNotBatman

20

Original post by _gcx

In defence of point 1 and 3:

1.

Not all degree courses are created equal, some will cover the content faster and go in more depth than others. It's important that the OP takes a degree course with a difficulty suitable for them so I think this is a sensible consideration.

2.

I think it's possible to give too much weight to student satisfaction and I'd say only pay attention to it if it's abnormally low. Minor differences probably aren't indicative of anything. People at "top tier" universities will have quite high expectations of their course, the university, and its facilities so you might expect them to be lower. In any case, I think the main problem is that for most people, that university is the only one they've been to, they have no points of comparison so wouldn't be able to tell if stuff was comparatively sub-par unless it was a glaring problem. I think more concrete metrics generally are better for this reason.

Yeah unfortunately there are no objective answers when it comes to this sort of thing. Rankings are good for generally placing universities in your head but then differentiating between them for choices it's a poor method. I think by real rankings they were referring to those that did not overwhelmingly weight non-academic factors. (such as The Guardian) There is no substitute for first hand research into degree courses you're interested in. (looking at module catalogues, visiting the uni, talking to students)

With the first point, I meant I didn't know what he's referring to, difficulty in terms of entry requirements, course or something else? Each criteria is different for a prospective undergraduate, Masters, PhD student or Post doc researcher. Research intensity is going to be less important for an undergrad than it is for any other student. Some courses may not provide enough rigour to satisfy a students' needs, but is it really prestige which determines that ?

As for point 2, that is true, but the same can be said of other metrics. If Cambridge had declining teaching and research standards, it would probably still be at the top of the league tables because of 'prestige', on the other hand a "brand" can be advantageous for particular fields.

The bit in bold is what worries me.

Original post by NotNotBatman

With the first point, I meant I didn't know what he's referring to, difficulty in terms of entry requirements, course or something else? Each criteria is different for a prospective undergraduate, Masters, PhD student or Post doc researcher. Research intensity is going to be less important for an undergrad than it is for any other student. Some courses may not provide enough rigour to satisfy a students' needs, but is it really prestige which determines that ?

As for point 2, that is true, but the same can be said of other metrics. If Cambridge had declining teaching and research standards, it would probably still be at the top of the league tables because of 'prestige', on the other hand a "brand" can be advantageous for particular fields.

The bit in bold is what worries me.

I think it's safe to say he was referring to course difficulty. Though it's closely tied with entry requirements. High entry requirements generally imply high entry standards which in turn generally imply demanding course, since the course has to scale in difficulty with the ability of the cohort. "Prestige" I'd agree isn't very important. For example KCL and Manchester are famous internationally (I'd think for historical reasons?) but their undergraduate maths programme looks to be fairly (comparatively) mediocre.

I'm not sure. No league tables really have metrics for prestige. I'm not sure if any of them judge internationally recognisability in which case they can't really be competed with.

Here we go...

Purely Undergraduate Level

Cambridge
---------------
Oxford
Imperial College London (A lot of Chinese students who are math geniuses but not too good at English.)
UCL / Warwick (I know Warwick is known for Math but international students who are good at Math go for the global reputation.)
Durham
St Andrews

I was an Imperial Math applicant myself and my flat mate studies Math at Imperial.
Also a lot of my classmates went to study Math at Warwick / UCL so from my experience, I'd rank it like that. (In terms of the quality of incoming students)

Which Uni is the best at Maths

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you