Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    More and more 'facts' with absolutely no evidence to back up with.
    Do the research yourself, rather than being spoon fed. The Russell Group website is easy enough to find at least.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    Do the research yourself, rather than being spoon fed. The Russell Group website is easy enough to find at least.
    Since I should really go back to work, this is my last response (and last time to correct you):

    Russell Group does mention QS rankings, but they also mention Times and ARWU:


    This is despite the fact that they perform worse in the other two rankings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morrisseya)
    Obviously it varies by subject. But, in your opinion, what are the top 10 universities in the UK, overall? (Re: prestige/job prospects/everything).
    1. Cambridge
    2. Oxford
    3. LSE
    4. Imperial
    5. UCL
    6. Edinburgh
    7. KCL
    8. Bristol
    9. Warwick
    10. Manchester
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Juan)
    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.
    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, **** 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by golden tribe)
    Oxford
    Cambridge
    Imperial
    Lse
    Ucl
    Bristol
    Edinburgh
    Kcl
    Manchester
    Warwick
    We have pretty much the same list, just in different order.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    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, **** 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    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.
    Only time will tell. They will still have the majority of courses asking for AAA.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morrisseya)
    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.u...tation-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/roug...ble/9#12409920
    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13315652


    JOB PROSPECTS

    Average graduate starting salaries
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...?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.thecompleteuniversityguid...gs?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.u.../world-ranking
    http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...-rankings/2014


    Look at recent REF outcomes:

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    If we look at it based on the criteria in your post:

    PRESTIGE

    Times Higher reputation rankings (by Academics)
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...tation-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/roug...ble/9#12409920
    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13315652


    JOB PROSPECTS

    Average graduate starting salaries
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...?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.thecompleteuniversityguid...gs?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.u.../world-ranking
    http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...-rankings/2014


    Look at recent REF outcomes:

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-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.
    I think you perfectly summed up everything and most people agree with that raking. Let's not forget the Shanghai rankings and the world rankings which could be considered the most important as it gives you an idea of what the rest of the world thinks. The only addition I would make is bristol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    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
    Bristol has more international impact than Warwick and Glasgow, and it is a better research university than these 2. I would remove Warwick from that international top 10 list and replace it with Bristol as Warwick is the weakest internationally.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    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.
    What evidence do you have for this statement?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hollywood Hogan)
    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.
    Those are pretty weak sources and attempt at giving evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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/businessschoo...a-ranking-2014
    I think you will find that majority of what you said is false.

    1. Warwick being prestigious in your country is not evidence of it being prestigious internationally as there are over 200 countries in the world. Nor is it evidence that it is one of the most prestigious in your country. You will need to qualify that.

    2. I am sure many universities can get a student into top Ivy Leagues for masters program. Entry into a masters programme is not that difficult or competitive, it is more about one's grades and ability to pay the fees. Even Lancaster can get one into a world class university if the person has good grades from Lancaster and can pay the fees. That is not evidence of international prestige.

    3. Warwick is a top school for mathematics and many quantitative subjects but when it comes to reputation with the best American students, Warwick is not as highly regarded or seen as prestigious generally or in comparison with LSE and Imperial. It is not even in the top 10. Even Sussex is more popular amongst American students.

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13802115

    4. Warwick has nowhere near the brand cache of KCL locally or internationally. It is only stonger locally in one area: Quantitative. That is like Imperial being better in Engineering than Oxford or City having a better reputation in quantitative subjects than QMW. The latters are still better universtities than the formers.

    The international reputation of Warwick is outside the Top 10 of UK universities, not to talk of Europe.

    KCL is more highly regarded locally and internationally.

    5. The evidence in the business world and the academic world suggests that KCL is better regarded and more prestigious than Warwick. Warwick is more prestigious in finance and attracts more firms to its campus from companies in this sector.

    Of course it will!

    KCL does not offer many subjects in that sector. It does not offer studies in Economics, Accounting & Finance or Engineering. Subjects that attract these firms. Worse still, its Mathemetics department is small and definitely not as good as Warwick's. Worse still, unlike Warwick, it does not have a business school. So it is not competing and cannot compete in that space. That is like telling LSE to compete with SOAS on international development when it has little offerings in that sector in comparison.

    So you cannot turn around and use one sector where KCL does not compete to say Warwick is more prestigious. Overall, KCL is more prestigious than Warwick to employers. This is evident in the fact that it has a higher graduate employment rate, higher average starting salaries, employers surveyed ranks it far higher and even academics surveyed rank it far higher than Warwick. So I would not say Warwick is more prestigious in the business world.

    6. There is no way in hell that Warwick is seen as more prestigious than UCL or on par with LSE and Imperial in the business world. Business subject rankings are not the same thing as the business world, so I don't understand why you included that link to prove your statement.

    For God sake, LSE and UCL do not have a proper business school, how can you show a business school ranking as evidence and think that is a ground for comparison?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khanpatel321)
    What makes you say that? Entry requirements are comparable to other top unis others than the top 3/4.
    With the reputation and quality of Manchester, merely being in the top 3/4 is not good enough.

    I would expect it and it has the clout to be in the space between Bristol and Strathclyde for entry requirements if not for its size. So should Nottingham.

    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...nkings?o=Entry

    St Andrews and Durham have high entry requirements largely due to their small size. They don't need that many students and they are top universities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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 you believe UCL do not match any of these schools because of the highlighted factors, then it is only logical to say Warwick does not match UCL because of these same factors.


    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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?
    Lancaster and Aberdeen also have a quarter of their students from outside the UK. Does that mean their profile abroad is great too?

    SOAS and UCL have roughly 40% (two-fifth) of their students being from outside the UK.

    Cambridge has only one-fifth of its students as international students. Oxford a measly 12%, roughly the same as University of East London.

    Surely all these must tell you this is a meaningless point about international profile?


    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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/cl...titutions.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.
    Again this is really completely meaningless evidence.

    The volume, quality and variety of universities just backs my earlier point that virtually any school can get one into an ivy for masters as long as they have the grades and can afford it.

    Come on. Anna University? Bob Jones University? Louisiana State University? Thammasat University? Visveswaraiah Technological University?

    Your evidence is not a stamp of quality.


    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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.
    Warwick can never go head-to-head or toe-to-toe with LSE, Imperial or UCL in or outside the UK.


    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    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.
    The evidence I produced earlier states which universities the best of the best American students would love to have on their CV.

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13802115

    I think LSE gives Warwick a significant gap in terms of prestige in the US and is the next best thing after Oxbridge. Maybe even with better prestige relative to size because it is less than half their size in student body.

    LSE's reputation in the US is immense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester United)
    Warwick reminds me of Juventus F.C; one of the European heavyweights but unappreciated and unfamiliar to the general public.
    Nah!

    I would put Warwick more in line with Tottenham Hotspurs.

    Local heavyweights, international underdogs and can only achieve promising or pretender status.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kedstar99)
    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.
    How did you come to the conclusion Imperial ranked higher than Oxford in the REF research assessment?

    Do you also know that Oxford is ranked higher in ARWU and THE rankings?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willburrr)
    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
    What set of criteria did you employ to conclude that Warwick is overall better than King's?
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.