Civil Engineering Unis : Imperials vs Ucl vs Warwick vs Bath vs Bristol

Warwick isn't really in the same regime as the others as far as engineering goes; they're better known for maths/CS/business/economics. Southampton, Strathclyde, Sheffield, Heriot-Watt, Oxford or Cambridge are, in my eyes, stronger options for both engineering generally and civil engineering specifically, than Warwick. Bath has a lot of links to the built environment sector specifically as I understand, between both it's civil engineering and architecture courses. Bristol is well regarded generally for engineering but I don't know how specifically well known their civil engineering programme is.

UCL gets quite polarising reviews for its engineering department; some of these I get the impression are due to unrealistic expectations, of how uni study works generally compared to school study i.e. lecturers aren't teachers and it's up to the student to take the initiative with their learnin,g and also of it's apparent position in relation to other internationally renowned engineering unis (e.g. Imperial, MIT, CalTech, CMU, Ecole Polytechnique, Oxbridge, etc). However there may be some merit to other complains, and they may well indicate overall "bad culture" in the department.

That said, realistically all of them will have similar graduate prospects, provided you make sure to undertake appropriate work experience/placement/internship opportunities during the degree. I have emphasised this because these days, that is what separates applicants in the graduate job market; where you studied doesn't make much difference these days, be it at a "top ranked" uni or otherwise; recruiters now tend to focus much more on work experience and how well the applicants can relate their studies to employable skills in the work place. Simply turning up to lectures at uni (a "top ranked" one or not) and taking exams doesn't cut it these days. For engineering I'd really recommend focusing more on thinking about the structures of each course, what options are (or aren't) available at each, as well as more practical aspects of the uni location, amenities, costs and so on, than the "ranking" of each uni (in league tables or as perceived by individuals).

Warwick isn't really in the same regime as the others as far as engineering goes; they're better known for maths/CS/business/economics. Southampton, Strathclyde, Sheffield, Heriot-Watt, Oxford or Cambridge are, in my eyes, stronger options for both engineering generally and civil engineering specifically, than Warwick. Bath has a lot of links to the built environment sector specifically as I understand, between both it's civil engineering and architecture courses. Bristol is well regarded generally for engineering but I don't know how specifically well known their civil engineering programme is.

UCL gets quite polarising reviews for its engineering department; some of these I get the impression are due to unrealistic expectations, of how uni study works generally compared to school study i.e. lecturers aren't teachers and it's up to the student to take the initiative with their learnin,g and also of it's apparent position in relation to other internationally renowned engineering unis (e.g. Imperial, MIT, CalTech, CMU, Ecole Polytechnique, Oxbridge, etc). However there may be some merit to other complains, and they may well indicate overall "bad culture" in the department.

That said, realistically all of them will have similar graduate prospects, provided you make sure to undertake appropriate work experience/placement/internship opportunities during the degree. I have emphasised this because these days, that is what separates applicants in the graduate job market; where you studied doesn't make much difference these days, be it at a "top ranked" uni or otherwise; recruiters now tend to focus much more on work experience and how well the applicants can relate their studies to employable skills in the work place. Simply turning up to lectures at uni (a "top ranked" one or not) and taking exams doesn't cut it these days. For engineering I'd really recommend focusing more on thinking about the structures of each course, what options are (or aren't) available at each, as well as more practical aspects of the uni location, amenities, costs and so on, than the "ranking" of each uni (in league tables or as perceived by individuals).

What would you say about the degree apprenticeship route as opposed to uni for civil eng?

If you can get an offer for it, my perspective is it's probably the best way to qualify as an engineer...you'll get all the academic content, lots of professional experience, you'll earn money while you're doing it to boot, and typically employers sponsoring a degree apprenticeship will be looking to take on their apprentices permanently when they complete their degrees, so you may even skip that attrition stage of applying for graduate jobs (unless you want to work somewhere else or in a different role).

It may be slightly less flexible if your ultimate goal is not to work in engineering, or if you aren't completely certain of that route/career...but even then, better to start in a degree apprenticeship and change your mind and apply to uni (or other jobs) after a year of getting paid than do so after a year of funding from SFE being used up permanently on a typical uni course!

Thank you for this when should i start looking at degree apprenticeships as now im going into y13 as of September

Not sure what timelines they run on - best start looking at them now to see what kinds of deadlines they have and what is involved in the application process. My understanding is they're usually a bit more involved than the UCAS application, with often multiple stages and assessment days/centres to attend if you get quite far in the process.

What about going to a good uni for example imperial,southampton or bath whereas doing a degree apprenticeship at a lower ranked university like london south bank? Both for civil eng