What unis have the poshest students?

So you think Durham is MUCH better than KCL, or just a bit? Is KCL THAT good? On international/QS + average salary rankings it seems so, but in terms of long-term job prospects/the prestige, is it equally good to Durham?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Both are excellent but different. Of the two I'd probably choose KCL due to the location, and I love the KCL campus and buildings in Holborn. The campus in Waterloo isn't that nice, however. That said, some of the medical buildings for Imperial College in Paddington are shocking.

Both KCL and Durham are posh. It depends if you are a big city person like I am, or whether you prefer the countryside. That is one if the main factors in deciding whether KCL is a better fit than Durham for yourself.

KCL it is then. I'd much rather stay in London.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Mansun sound like an admissions officer from Nottingham haha. Where I am from the name Nottingham doesn't ring a bell to most people. Whereas mentioning that you went to a uni such as oxbridge ucl imperial lse will immediately gain you respect.

On research and academic strength alone, The rankings would look something like this:-

1st Cambridge
Oxford
Imperial
UCL
LSE
Warwick
Bristol
Manchester
Edinburgh = Nottingham = KCL
Durham
Sheffield

In the Shanghai and QS world rankings, which assess mainly on research strength, the likes of Manchester (top 40-50) and Nottingham (top 75-85) are stronger than the more traditionally favoured Durham (top 100), and much stronger than St Andrews (not even top 150).

So Nottingham can rightfully claim to be a top 10 UK university. The Times and Complete University Guide many disagree, but they are based on things like student satisfaction, spending per student, staff per student etc which penalise the bigger unis like Notts and Manchester with higher student intake.

Mansun sound like an admissions officer from Nottingham haha. Where I am from the name Nottingham doesn't ring a bell to most people. Whereas mentioning that you went to a uni such as oxbridge ucl imperial lse will immediately gain you respect.

Durham > King's

For job/promotion/salary prospects? Or some other criteria?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Nonsense the only way that Nottingham can rightfully claim to be a top 10 UK university is by what you as an alumni think about it which is not surprising in the least. There are NO tables that rank is specifically top 10 in UK. end of.

You said it yourself, the bold part shows that research is a main critieria of all global tables. This relates much more to Phds than taughts.

The other criteria also in bold refers more to taught courses where these sorts of things really matter to UG and masters students.

The two don't mix like oil and water.

So as horses for courses.

Global for Phd ranks and UK for UG ranks. Simple

Oh yes as a Bristol graduate, I accept that it is outside the top 10 in UK but I believe it will improve.

Your attitude seems not to reflect the same confidence in Notts.

Durham edges KCL in terms of being a target uni for Eton and Harrow etc. But employers will think KCL = Durham. Both have lots of tradition. If you really want an edge in the job market, head for Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial or UCL, and possibly Warwick. The rest like Notts, Kings, Durham, Edinburgh are more closer to each other in that regard.

For job/promotion/salary prospects? Or some other criteria?

Posted from TSR Mobile

And the Notts/Kings/Durham/Edinburgh band of unis are still good enough to get a top job? I discussed this with one of my friends, and he basically said "of course you can get a top job if you went to KCL"... How hard I find that to believe. All that's clicked in my mind is the idea of elite (top 6/banking targets) as places that will REALLY get you somewhere, and the 'top' unis, where the idea of you getting well-off/getting a good job is just BS. I'll just be a slave to the COWI UCL LSE bunch.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That is not correct. The RAE exercise, formerly used by the Financial Times as a University rankings league table, places Nottingham 7th, up from 14th in 2001. Every university recognises the importance of the RAE and frequently quote their results in their prospectuses. Also rankings are of little value if you use rubbish criteria to rank them. Bristol clearly is a top 8 university, and Nottingham is neck and neck with Edinburgh and Manchester, to name a few, in and around the top 10-15 for overall prestige, research and global reputation. Notts is top 12 at the worst, and they claim on their homepage to be top 10 and world top 75, so they are confident in their status.

Notts made a choice to invest in the university, and expand student numbers. Only by doing so were they ever going to meet their long-term vission of raising the necessary funds to challange the top 50 universities in the world for research. They could have just kept their student numbers low and kept the media ranking as top 10, but they don't care about these small things, they wanted to be a research powerhouse globally, and they now are. The fact that Notts has stunning campuses in Malaysia and China is amazing and puts them in another league globally to Durham.

Also, coming from a medical science background I am always going to view things from a science perspective, an area Nottingham is very strong in, and one which the likes of St Andrews and Durham are not as strong. Also, many students choose their unis on distance from home, and not just reputation. From where I am based, I was never going to consider anything North of Nottingham as it would have been more than 2 hours drive away.

As long as the university is considered excellent (Russell Group + Bath + St Andrews), does it really matter where you go? Most students don't go into investment banking or anything financially related, or Law.

The newspaper rankings make me laugh. Since when were Lancaster, Loughborough, and Surrey top 20 unis? They are top 31-35 unis at best. The media league tables fool the ignorant in thinking they are attending a world class university, when in fact they are just ''good'' universities, and largely overlooked by the best schools.

Personally I reckon for all. Durham was attended by a few of my ex public school mates not many, but more than KCL.

KCL not being a top institution was thought of as " too obvious " , something for foreign students rather than England's posh if you like.

Stop using out of date criteria. You've just proven what I said:

There are NO (current, which should be understood)tables that rank is specifically top 10 in UK. end of.


You said it yourself, the bold part shows that research is a main criteria of all global tables. This relates much more to Phds than taughts.

The other criteria also in bold refers more to taught courses where these sorts of things really matter to UG and masters students.

Global for Phd ranks and UK for UG ranks. Simple

Globalism and research are criteria used primarily for Phds not UG. In fact many people would say globalism brings down the quality of taught courses as English is not the 1st language of non UK staff and student.

This does not matter at PhD but matters a great deal at the UG level for obvious reasons.

If you are a medic than the university matters even less. Nobody judges a Dr from where he attended, they judge him for how good he is in practice.

Who gets to say a university is considered excellent ? You ? Who are you? Who appointed you into this position ?

If newspaper rankings make you laugh, then why do you continuously refer to them ? They seem to irk you quite a lot.

Yet you are selective in your reference, you praise some and deride others that don't agree with your view about Notts .

That seems a more than a tad hypocritical.