Turn on thread page Beta

The QS World University Rankings® 2015/16 will be published on TopUniversities.com on watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, here we go again... There's something both amusing and sad about watching teenagers argue about the prestige of the unis they want to go to when they grow up.

    But, but... in this newspaper's latest table, my uni is ranked 6 placed above your uni... Yeah, but my uni's investing this much money so in 5 years my uni will be better than yours. No no, I'll bet you half my money everyone thinks my uni is more prestigious! Yeah well, my uni has graduates who work for Goldman Sachs... So what, I'll I'm more of an expert on university prestige than you... I'm better looking than you. No you're not, I'll kick your arse!

    Oh ffs, it's just too hilarious.

    The funny thing is kids, it matters so much less than you think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)

    In English and creative writing, Durham has a higher entry tariff compares to Cambridge. Based on your logic, this essentially means that international students will prefer Durham over Cambridge, and that they do. Is that the case? Do you think the international applicant would indeed turn Cambridge down because Durham has a higher entry tariff?
    No, certainly not.

    First of all, the Oxbridge are special. They've survived many generations and their history is very well rooted to the origin of formal, highly systematized educational system, and the newer universities are using them as the benchmark of academic excellence, or a refined pedagogic approach to formal education. They are truly special places and every scholar worldwide would love to have either name added to his/her resume. Period.

    Second, there are a good number of talented students applying to very few elite universities in the UK. And, there's a glaring incident of overflowing talents in the roaster of Oxbridge applicants.
    The Cambridge English department couldn't absorb all those bright kids that are knocking on their doors. Because the places are numbered the slots are given only to the lucky chosen few. Those that weren't cut aren't necessarily slack off candidates. Some of them may even have grades slightly higher than those applicants offered admissions. There aren't just enough places for them at Cambridge, so they go to the top places popularly known to horde those that -- like them -- very smart but weren't lucky to secure a place: The top 3 London unis, Warwick, Durham, St Andrews, Edinburgh, and to a lesser extent, Bristol, Bath, Exeter, and King's. Those aren't necessarily bad places to attend college degree at. They're not Oxbridge. But they're not bad places, nevertheless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xenophile)
    Ah, here we go again... There's something both amusing and sad about watching teenagers argue about the prestige of the unis they want to go to when they grow up.

    But, but... in this newspaper's latest table, my uni is ranked 6 placed above your uni... Yeah, but my uni's investing this much money so in 5 years my uni will be better than yours. No no, I'll bet you half my money everyone thinks my uni is more prestigious! Yeah well, my uni has graduates who work for Goldman Sachs... So what, I'll I'm more of an expert on university prestige than you... I'm better looking than you. No you're not, I'll kick your arse!

    Oh ffs, it's just too hilarious.

    The funny thing is kids, it matters so much less than you think.
    These discussions can be interesting to a point, then they go on far too long, and become absurd. A lot of English students out there will be ptsl and thinking that some people need to get a life, especially if they can't debate properly.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    No, certainly not.

    First of all, the Oxbridge are special. They've survived many generations and their history is very well rooted to the origin of formal, highly systematized educational system, and the newer universities are using them as the benchmark of academic excellence, or a refined pedagogic approach to formal education. They are truly special places and every scholar worldwide would love to have either name added to his/her resume. Period.

    Second, there are a good number of talented students applying to very few elite universities in the UK. And, there's a glaring incident of overflowing talents in the roaster of Oxbridge applicants.
    The Cambridge English department couldn't absorb all those bright kids that are knocking on their doors. Because the places are numbered the slots are given only to the lucky chosen few. Those that weren't cut aren't necessarily slack off candidates. Some of them may even have grades slightly higher than those applicants offered admissions. There aren't just enough places for them at Cambridge, so they go to the top places popularly known to horde those that -- like them -- very smart but weren't lucky to secure a place: The top 3 London unis, Warwick, Durham, St Andrews, Edinburgh, and to a lesser extent, Bristol, Bath, Exeter, and King's. Those aren't necessarily bad places to attend college degree at. They're not Oxbridge. But they're not bad places, nevertheless.
    This post is unrelated to what I said.

    You said a higher entry tariff suggests that international students will apply to them. I gave you an example of how that would not be true, and instead of saying you're wrong, you're just rambling on to talk about other factors involved.

    Of course there are other factors involved! That's my point! International applicants don't just look at entry tariffs to decide on their choices.

    Ever if we don't compare Oxbridge to non-Oxbridge, I'm sure there are other specific disciplines a less prestigious institution would have a higher entry tariff, and that means nothing. International students are still more likely to apply to the one that's more well known. Especially when you consider the fact that international students pay a lot more, things like 'whether my mother has heard of it' matters a lot more, and in this case, mothers are probably more likely to have heard of Manchester than of Warwick. But I don't know, and you don't know.

    I wouldn't be so sure international students would mostly choose Warw over Man, that's my point, and that is one that you haven't been addressing, perhaps you also realise that it's certainly is not 100% certain when there are so many factors involved in international application outside of purely looking at UCAS entry tariffs.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    We're talking about Manchester and Warwick here. We're talking about two universities that are both located in the same country. This way, it is easier for us to pit them against each other because they both are under the same entrance system (UCAS), follow similar grading conversion (A-Levels, IB, etc), attract the same demographic (fresh graduates from high schools, IB, A-Levels, etc) and are playing in the same battle field (UK).
    No, because you are talking about international applications and international applicants are likely to also compare universities in different countries under different systems.

    But if you insist: Durham has a higher entry tariff compared to UCL. Which one do you think international students are more likely to choose?

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    Do not compare a Hong Kong university to one located in a different country. Each country has its own different and unique admission system, and attracts different demographic -- graduates of their own. HKU was founded to serve the people in HK, not British. Cambridge was founded to serve their own not the Chinese. While they do accept international applicants, the fact is, they largely were established to primarily cater their own.
    I think you have the tendency to just type whatever's on your mind even though it's unrelated to the discussion and does not contribute to it.

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    But even then, you said, occasionally. So, it's not like, by and large, HKU is more difficult to get into than Cambridge, right? Because, by and large, Cambridge is more different to get into than HKU. Correct?
    There isn't data on that, but on TSR you can see many people claiming to have a higher condition from HKU/HKUST than from Oxbridge, HKU also has a much lower application-to-acceptance ratio.

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    I think you confused prestige with popularity.
    This is hilarious.

    Considering the fact that you are the one claiming that places with a higher entry tariff (ie more popular) is essentially the one international students would go for (which would suggest choosing Durham over Cambridge or UCL), you are the one who confused prestige with popularity.

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    I think HKU isn't as popular as Cambridge.
    Indeed. It is more popular than Cambridge.

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    But I think HKU is a prestigious university in itself. When I checked out the top schools in HK/China, it appeared right there at the very top of the heap. It is considered the top school in that region of Asia. It may not be as popular as Cambridge worldwide, but it certainly is a prestigious university nonetheless, and it attracts some of the very best students in that part of Asia.
    Your original point: International students would choose Warwick over Manchester because entry tariffs are higher at Warwick than at Manchester.

    My point: There are many other factors involved in the selection of universities, otherwise, based on entry tariffs, people may choose HKU over Cambridge, Durham over Cambridge, or Durham over UCL. In these three scenarios, people are likely to choose Cambridge over HKU (as Cambs is incredibly more prestigious and famous), Cambridge over Durham (ditto), and UCL over Durham (UCL a lot more famous and is in London).

    You were very simplistic in your thinking and made a judgement based on too little information. I'm glad to see that you are starting to consider other factors after I've thrown you some examples, but please don't act like I'm the one who's confused and reductive.

    (Original post by jameslaparan)
    The same can be said of many prestigious colleges in America that were unranked by QS. Colleges like Williams, Amherst, Swharthmore, Pomona and Harvey Mudd are some of the most prestigious colleges in America. They may not be popular schools, and perhaps they don't ring a bell to you, but that wouldn't make them less prestigious schools. They are some of the most difficult colleges to get into. Again, they're not popular schools. But they certainly are prestigious, somewhat similar to the case of Warwick, Durham and St Andrews. They're not necessarily a worldwide name yet. But they certainly are prestigious universities, nonetheless. They are selective. And, they are exclusive.
    Another block of test that does not contribute to our discussion.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 20, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.