Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If you're not sattisfied with that, use this -- http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_...ub=1&x=13&y=13
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    School prestige is often determined by the Entry Standards and even in this area we can CLEARLY see that Imperial is no match to Cambridge. Average Entry Standards for Cambridge engineering = 554 while Imperials = 464.

    Master Polhem, now show me proof that Imperial is more prestigious than Cambridge. Come one, I'm waiting. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Reliance on these tables is rather silly, and especially so for engineering. Oxford, for instance, is second in the Times ranking for general engineering (and its average entry standard is well above Imperial's) and students come out of the degree with an accreditation for whichever of the disciplines they choose to specialise in during the course. Yet it does not appear in any of the discipline-specific tables.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    You're not only ignorant -- you're lazy as well. Ok here are the rankings; eat them!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...ts-813740.html

    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...e.htm?ipg=6643


    Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    4 Imperial College


    Chemical Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    2 Imperial College


    Civil Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    7 Imperial College


    Computer Science
    1 Cambridge 5
    -
    3 Imperial College


    Electrical & Electronic Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    6 Imperial College


    General Engineering
    1 Cambridge

    Imperial - not in the list



    Materials Technology
    1 Cambridge
    2 Imperial College



    Mechanical Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    6 Imperial College




    Physics & Astronomy
    1 Cambridge
    -
    3 Imperial College





    I could not even see a subject where Imperial is ranked higher than Cambridge, NOT even a single subject!!

    Master Polhem, I beg you to STOP fooling yourself or you will further humiliate yourself in this message board.
    The fact that you are resorting to league tables to make a point shows that you are desperate. League tables are an extraordinarily useless way choosing a good university.

    I can negate your whole post with this league table:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    Will you look at that:

    1. Imperial

    Cambridge nowhere to be found.

    Or this one:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    1. Cambridge
    2. Imperial

    Which is rather strange seeing as we do not do general engineering...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    School prestige is often determined by the Entry Standards and even in this area we can CLEARLY see that Imperial is no match to Cambridge. Average Entry Standards for Cambridge engineering = 554 while Imperials = 464.

    Master Polhem, now show me proof that Imperial is more prestigious than Cambridge. Come one, I'm waiting. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
    Really I thought what the graduates got up to after they graduated was more of a factor for prestige.

    Requiring AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA with 100% in every module does not mean that you are clever enough to get the Nobel price.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    ^ I know what you mean, but, at least, I have something to show to prove my claims. What about the guy rooting for Imperial??? He does not have any other than his big mouth, anecdotes and lies.

    I'm not saying Imperial has lousy academic standards. All I'm saying is that Cambridge has got more academic prestige than Imperial has. You can check the high quality of students attending Cambridge through the Entry Standards points. Imperial may have an excellent academic quality. I don't know, but I suspect it has. But that's not the one I was commenting about. I was talking about academic prestige, and in that area, Cambridge would trump Imperial big time.

    Again, if you can get me the data of the enrollment yield for both schools, I’ll explain to you why Cambridge is superior to Imperial in academic prestige.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Polhem)
    The fact that you are resorting to league tables to make a point shows that you are desperate. League tables are an extraordinarily useless way choosing a good university.

    I can negate your whole post with this league table:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    Will you look at that:

    1. Imperial

    Cambridge nowhere to be found.

    Or this one:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    1. Cambridge
    2. Imperial

    Which is rather strange seeing as we do not do general engineering...
    If you have some wit in that pea size brain of yours, get the average scores. :woo: :woo:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Polhem)
    Really I thought what the graduates got up to after they graduated was more of a factor for prestige.

    Requiring AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA with 100% in every module does not mean that you are clever enough to get the Nobel price.

    Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! How ignorant can you get. :laughing:

    How would fresh A-Level grads be able to know that???? Come on, think Mr Imperial guy. I told you, you're the one who's not thinking here.

    Academic prestige is often determined by the schools' high entry standards. If Cambridge isn't good, it can't attract the best students. The fact the Cambridge students are generally smarter, means it has superior academic prestige. Those extremely talented students are not stupid to go to Cambridge knowing Imperial is better........ :woo: :woo: :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Polhem)
    The fact that you are resorting to league tables to make a point shows that you are desperate. League tables are an extraordinarily useless way choosing a good university.

    I can negate your whole post with this league table:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    Will you look at that:

    1. Imperial

    Cambridge nowhere to be found.

    Or this one:

    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/educati...l&Institution=

    1. Cambridge
    2. Imperial

    Which is rather strange seeing as we do not do general engineering...
    Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but surely the first link is irrelevant if it doesn't have Cambridge on it, and the second if you acknowledge Imperial shouldn't be there?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    You're not only ignorant -- you're lazy as well. Ok here are the rankings; eat them!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...ts-813740.html

    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...e.htm?ipg=6643


    Aeronautical & Manufacturing Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    4 Imperial College


    Chemical Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    2 Imperial College


    Civil Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    7 Imperial College


    Computer Science
    1 Cambridge 5
    -
    3 Imperial College


    Electrical & Electronic Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    6 Imperial College


    General Engineering
    1 Cambridge

    Imperial - not in the list



    Materials Technology
    1 Cambridge
    2 Imperial College



    Mechanical Engineering
    1 Cambridge
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    6 Imperial College




    Physics & Astronomy
    1 Cambridge
    -
    3 Imperial College





    I could not even see a subject where Imperial is ranked higher than Cambridge, NOT even a single subject!!

    Master Polhem, I beg you to STOP fooling yourself or you will further humiliate yourself in this message board.
    Rankings? Oh dear.....he isn't the one humiliating himself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Cambridge does rely a lot on its academic placing to get students in to fill its engineering places. I am not saying it is a rubbish uni for engineering, but it relies on its academic placing in league tables to get people into the uni. When you are at the "top" and you can afford to have a 3 day interview process, you can cream the top guys off.

    I have heard stories from a number of sponsors that Cambridge graduates have been arrogant and unwilling to pull their finger out, with their treatment of fellow staff branded in some cases as appalling. One case I have heard of, led to one of the girls leaving a lad by the roadside of the motorway after he decided that it would be reasonable to inspect the centre pier of the motorway by crossing 3 lanes of traffic instead of calling in the engineering company and the police to arrange a short block of the fast lane. Needless to say, the lad was fired.

    The teaching style funds that arrogance. They spend two doing general then specialising in Civil, whilst the rest of us have specialised in the type of civil engineering we want to do. There is also more 1 to 1 teaching than we have. That doesn't happen much in the real world, you are part of a big organisation and you are expected to slot into an already working team

    Cardiff is well known for its arrogance in recruitment of students at the top of the Civil league table. It knows that virtually everyone will apply because it is at the top. We at Newcastle have had many brutal comments about Cardiff that say they are not keeping an eye on the ball

    At the end of the day, this thread has turned into a penis waving contest. Congratulations, you are not going to prove anything at the moment as all you can throw at each other is league table results and perceptions. Wow, what amazingly backed up sources you have.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boxface)
    Perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but surely the first link is irrelevant if it doesn't have Cambridge on it, and the second if you acknowledge Imperial shouldn't be there?
    I was trying to make a point about how irrelevant league tables are and how they are not to be trusted. Clearly a point which required explaining.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    School prestige is often determined by the Entry Standards and even in this area we can CLEARLY see that Imperial is no match to Cambridge. Average Entry Standards for Cambridge engineering = 554 while Imperials = 464.

    Master Polhem, now show me proof that Imperial is more prestigious than Cambridge. Come one, I'm waiting. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
    Again little man you are using league tables which, again, are a useless tool for determining how good a university is. Did you know that the times one gives the entry standards for Imperial at 494 and Cambridge at 536? So again this is not a debate about Cambridge and Imperial, that has been done before, it is about you commenting on everything to with prestige when you have nothing to back it up with.

    (ohh and just so you understand my argument and for others, the above shows that figures vary vastly between tables hence making them unreliable)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluenoxid)
    Cambridge does rely a lot on its academic placing to get students in to fill its engineering places. I am not saying it is a rubbish uni for engineering, but it relies on its academic placing in league tables to get people into the uni. When you are at the "top" and you can afford to have a 3 day interview process, you can cream the top guys off.

    I have heard stories from a number of sponsors that Cambridge graduates have been arrogant and unwilling to pull their finger out, with their treatment of fellow staff branded in some cases as appalling. One case I have heard of, led to one of the girls leaving a lad by the roadside of the motorway after he decided that it would be reasonable to inspect the centre pier of the motorway by crossing 3 lanes of traffic instead of calling in the engineering company and the police to arrange a short block of the fast lane. Needless to say, the lad was fired.

    The teaching style funds that arrogance. They spend two doing general then specialising in Civil, whilst the rest of us have specialised in the type of civil engineering we want to do. There is also more 1 to 1 teaching than we have. That doesn't happen much in the real world, you are part of a big organisation and you are expected to slot into an already working team

    Cardiff is well known for its arrogance in recruitment of students at the top of the Civil league table. It knows that virtually everyone will apply because it is at the top. We at Newcastle have had many brutal comments about Cardiff that say they are not keeping an eye on the ball

    At the end of the day, this thread has turned into a penis waving contest. Congratulations, you are not going to prove anything at the moment as all you can throw at each other is league table results and perceptions. Wow, what amazingly backed up sources you have.
    Come now, Cambridge is an excellent university and has always been and it is truly wonderful for engineering. I am sure most universities produce a handful of arses each year, difficult not to.

    EDIT: Sorry for turning this into a pissing contest not my intention but I had to retort, in the name of engineering, on his perception of 'prestige'. Sorry again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Iligan you arguement's reliance on 'academic prestige' (something which you mention in virtually all of your posts) really shows you don't know what you're talking about. Academic prestige is based on perception, and perception is not necessarily reality (there's a whole philosophical argument out there if you want to read it). You should realise that 'academic prestige' has no place in an argument about who is better (as silly as they are) because it does not quantify any aspect of the university. You treat this notion of 'academic prestige' as the Bible, but what does it actually measure? Funding? Academic performance? Teaching? Facilities? I know you provided an explanation earlier, but you neglect to mention that when it comes to universities, it's the end product that's significant i.e. the quality of the students graduating from a given university, so saying "so and so attracts better students" "Oxbridge has higher point scores" doesn't come into play - it's the reason Oxbridge interviewers look for 'how you think' (rather than what you know) and the reason why Loughborough engineering graduates are held in such high esteem, because both know they provide an environment where students will flourish.

    I'm not saying I know loads about engineering myself (certainly my knowledge pales in comparison to the likes of Master Polhem) but weren't you the one who asked what a general engineering degree was the other day?

    (Original post by Barry Chuckle)
    any civ eng's at bristol?

    not seen it mentioned yet (after a brief look), but surely it must be among one of the best places to study civ eng? tell me about it :p:
    I'm not at Bristol but I did visit and it's a really great department. The lectures were really enthusiastic, the facilites were pretty good - they have their own earthquake table! They also recently introduced more design modules into their programme, which you might like or you might not. It's definately one of the best places for civil engineering, which is something it's quite well known for.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! How ignorant can you get. :laughing:

    How would fresh A-Level grads be able to know that???? Come on, think Mr Imperial guy. I told you, you're the one who's not thinking here.

    Academic prestige is often determined by the schools' high entry standards. If Cambridge isn't good, it can't attract the best students. The fact the Cambridge students are generally smarter, means it has superior academic prestige. Those extremely talented students are not stupid to go to Cambridge knowing Imperial is better........ :woo: :woo: :woo:
    You cannot just derive entry standards on an ad-hoc basis you know. They have to be high to withstand the reputation that Cambridge has because of the excellent graduates it has produced during the past 800 years.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Polhem)
    I was trying to make a point about how irrelevant league tables are and how they are not to be trusted. Clearly a point which required explaining.
    So, we'll have to trust what you say over league tables, is that what you're saying? :eek:


    Look, I wasn't commenting to Imperial's academic quality. I could not make any comment about it because I have not attended a class there.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Master Polhem,


    Let's all tell all those talented students to stop aiming for Cambridge and Oxford because Imperial is better. Okay, you can sleep at night now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    Master Polhem,


    Let's all tell all those talented students to stop aiming for Cambridge and Oxford because Imperial is better. Okay, you can sleep at night now.
    You don't actually read the above posts do you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILIGAN)
    So, we'll have to trust what you say over league tables, is that what you're saying? :eek:
    The logic behind the statement, should by common-sense, outweigh the fallacies proposed in this thread seemingly because I have more than once shown that the statement is either false or a completely different figure is had elsewhere.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: October 3, 2008

University open days

  • Heriot-Watt University
    School of Textiles and Design Undergraduate
    Fri, 16 Nov '18
  • University of Roehampton
    All departments Undergraduate
    Sat, 17 Nov '18
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 17 Nov '18
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

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.