The Student Room Group

The most over and underrated unis?

Scroll to see replies

Underrated: Sussex, UEA, Kent
Reply 61
Original post by Tsunami2011
lol, they're shooting themselves in the foot son. If you get AAA from Ox and A*AA from their pretenders you're not even going to be insuring durham.


With Universities so oversubscribed, a lot of universities, particularly high ranking ones such as Durham will still get a lot of applicants.

Anyway, your point is moot - If someone got an AAA offer from Oxford, then even if Durham's offer was AAB, if the person failed to get into Oxford, why would Durham want someone with AAB when they could get someone with A*AA? And if Durham were asking for BBB, I doubt someone applying to Oxford would consider them. Universities don't compete for the number of people who list them as insurances, they compete for the best candidates.
Reply 62
Overrated - Brunel, Manchester
Underrated -Hull, Lancaster, Keele
Original post by FDR
With Universities so oversubscribed, a lot of universities, particularly high ranking ones such as Durham will still get a lot of applicants.

Anyway, your point is moot - If someone got an AAA offer from Oxford, then even if Durham's offer was AAB, if the person failed to get into Oxford, why would Durham want someone with AAB when they could get someone with A*AA? And if Durham were asking for BBB, I doubt someone applying to Oxford would consider them. Universities don't compete for the number of people who list them as insurances, they compete for the best candidates.


you missed my point. Unless someone is intent on not applying to oxbridge, the A*AA offer from Durham means that in an ideal situation Durham is unlikely to be the firm/insurance if the applicant gets five offers. its unadvisable,but many students have firm; A*AA and insurance; AAA
Original post by Tsunami2011
lol, they're shooting themselves in the foot son. If you get AAA from Ox and A*AA from their pretenders you're not even going to be insuring durham.


Ox has also raised the barrior :P Also the Durham = Fake Oxbridge thing really isnt true. Apart from people in durham being rejected by oxbridge and the collegit system, the similarities are really not that great.
Original post by Samus2
Overrated - Brunel, Manchester
Underrated -Hull, Lancaster, Keele


If Lancaster was rated any higher, it'd be closing the gap on oxbridge.
Reply 66
Original post by Tsunami2011
If Lancaster was rated any higher, it'd be closing the gap on oxbridge.


Maybe it's just where I'm from. I know plenty of people that don't regard Lancaster as good but rather as average.
Original post by bluee
Oxbridge, Leeds, Exeter = Over rated.

Nottingham and University of East Anglia = Under rated.


I used to think that Oxbridge was over-rated until I was in the library until 2:30AM in Freshers' Week.

Judging from the experiences of my friends who go to other top-tier universities, I can honestly say that they do not have anywhere near the same amount of work.
Reply 68
Original post by Tsunami2011
you missed my point. Unless someone is intent on not applying to oxbridge, the A*AA offer from Durham means that in an ideal situation Durham is unlikely to be the firm/insurance if the applicant gets five offers. its unadvisable,but many students have firm; A*AA and insurance; AAA


This.

Not to mention Oxbridge, Offers from Durham is higher than Imperial/LSE. For any course these two institutions offer, it will be better than Durham so applicants are likely to decline Durham's offer.
Reply 69
Original post by Cast.Iron
I used to think that Oxbridge was over-rated until I was in the library until 2:30AM in Freshers' Week.

Judging from the experiences of my friends who go to other top-tier universities, I can honestly say that they do not have anywhere near the same amount of work.


Yea but the amount of work set done mean that it's better.
Other university have just as good resources.
Also at other university lectures are teach what they study, they are passionate about they do, so there teaching can be better. Many at oxbridge are told what to teach in a broader subject rather then what they specialise in. Oxbridge loose staff to other universities, making them better.
Reply 70
Admittedly I'm biased, but I'd say Cardiff is pretty underrated...most people I know didn't even consider applying there and went for all the usual Leeds, Nottingham, Sheffield etc, but I think it's a fantastic university and the city is perfect for students.
Reply 71
Sometimes grossly underated: Barts and The London (even by me before I went in the open day..)
Reply 72
Original post by Cast.Iron
Judging from the experiences of my friends who go to other top-tier universities, I can honestly say that they do not have anywhere near the same amount of work.


The workload is not necessarily indicative of quality. If it's empty, irritating busywork for useless modules from which you gain no benefit then it is pointless.
Original post by bluee
Yea but the amount of work set done mean that it's better.
Other university have just as good resources.
Also at other university lectures are teach what they study, they are passionate about they do, so there teaching can be better. Many at oxbridge are told what to teach in a broader subject rather then what they specialise in. Oxbridge loose staff to other universities, making them better.


I will concede that it does not necessarily make the university better but it does mean that Oxbridge students work exceedingly hard for their degrees.

Other universities do not have just as good resources; the money pumped into Oxford and Cambridge is staggering. That is not to say that other universities in this country do not have world class facilities, but these two institutions have them across the board and not just in one or two areas.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find an institution which allows academics to exclusively teach what their specialism is, especially considering the fact that those specialisms are often so narrow and advanced that it would be nothing short of counter-productive to try and teach them to undergraduates. I think you will find that Oxbridge academics teach within their broad area of research, as I would imagine is the same for other universities.

And please, it would be absolute fallacy to contest that Oxbridge academics are less passionate than those at other universities. Of course there are going to be movements of staff between universities, but I highly doubt that it's due to the style of undergraduate teaching.
Reply 74
Original post by Cast.Iron
I will concede that it does not necessarily make the university better but it does mean that Oxbridge students work exceedingly hard for their degrees.

Other universities do not have just as good resources; the money pumped into Oxford and Cambridge is staggering. That is not to say that other universities in this country do not have world class facilities, but these two institutions have them across the board and not just in one or two areas.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find an institution which allows academics to exclusively teach what their specialism is, especially considering the fact that those specialisms are often so narrow and advanced that it would be nothing short of counter-productive to try and teach them to undergraduates. I think you will find that Oxbridge academics teach within their broad area of research, as I would imagine is the same for other universities.

And please, it would be absolute fallacy to contest that Oxbridge academics are less passionate than those at other universities. Of course there are going to be movements of staff between universities, but I highly doubt that it's due to the style of undergraduate teaching.


I grave take exception to this.

Apart from the fact that all of this is biased, elitist garbage, I should add that I didn't go to Oxbridge and worked myself into the ****ing ground for my degree. It's not only Oxbridge students who actually put the effort in, you know, and my university spent every penny it had on student resources so much so that staff pay was frozen and some other improvements put on hold. Careful budgeting, and I would far rather have four new computer labs than a formal dinner every week.

Does that make my experience worthless because it wasn't Oxbridge? I should also add that there are many subjects at Oxbridge which are much better taught and much better researched elsewhere; contrary to what people would like to believe, Oxbridge are not the best for every single subject area in the known universe.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ch0llima
I grave take exception to this.

Apart from the fact that all of this is biased, elitist garbage, I should add that I didn't go to Oxbridge and worked myself into the ****ing ground for my degree. It's not only Oxbridge students who actually put the effort in, you know, and my university spent every penny it had on student resources so much so that staff pay was frozen.

Does that make my experience worthless because it wasn't Oxbridge? I should also add that there are many subjects at Oxbridge which are much better taught and much better researched elsewhere; contrary to what people would like to believe, Oxbridge are not the best for every single subject area in the known universe.


I don't think there's any need to take personal offence at what I said.

I never disagreed with the fact that students working at other universities don't work exceptionally hard for their degrees but I am sure that you will concede that sometimes people can get away with doing less. At Oxbridge, with two supervisions with an academic a week, usually in groups of 3, there is nowhere to hide. If you haven't done the work to the necessary standard then it will be plainly obvious.

In answer to your question, no it doesn't. I'm not quite sure why you'd ask that.

I am sure there are, but that does not change the fact that the facilities at Oxbridge are outstanding across the board, which is what I claimed.

EDIT: Out of interest, which university did you attend?
(edited 12 years ago)
Overated = probably all russell group members.

Under-rated. Probably some of the better newer universities. They often get cast of as just ex-polys but there are one or two good ones like OxBrooks or Trent and they shouldn't be thrown in the same category as London met or LSBU etc.
Reply 77
Underrated Glasgow
Overrated: UCL, Birmingham, Lancaster, Kent.
Underrated: Manchester, Sheffield, Hertfordshire, QUB, Liverpool, Leeds and Nottingham (slightly).
lulz many oxford rejects in here.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending