The Student Room Group
University College London, University of London
University College London
London

Is UCL overrated?

I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Maybe wriite a letter to Niki Morgan regarding the value of btec if that makes you content? You should take league tables with a pinch of salt! I mean these garbage newspapers make them up.It's not even reliable and representative as it is partially based on student surveys and research facilities which has no impact on education. Everyone knows Oxbridge will be at the top followed by lse etc..and London met at the bottom. Don't worry too much about it!:smile: I've seen loads of people say how on earth are btecs sufficient preparation for uni when you have exams and one would struggle.as most of the information os spoon fed in btecs. No offence to anyone whp takes them.Don't hate.

Posted from TSR Mobile
University College London, University of London
University College London
London
UCL is a great uni,but I chose king's over it :tongue:
Original post by queen-bee
UCL is a great uni,but I chose king's over it :tongue:

For what course if you don't mind me asking?
All universities are overrated.
Original post by Raymat
For what course if you don't mind me asking?


Biomedical science
Original post by Raymat
I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..


Paragraphs. Utilise them please.
Original post by Jasaron
Paragraphs. Utilise them please.


A lot of the time I write more than I intend to so I don't realise I've written so much that it needs to be in paragraphs :s-smilie:
Original post by queen-bee
Biomedical science

A bit random, but is kings better than qmul for your course? (only asking cause my freind is applying to both)
Reply 9
No, UCL is great. Much better than King's and equal to LSE in social sciences (economics, politics) and humanities (law especially).
Original post by TheMagican
A bit random, but is kings better than qmul for your course? (only asking cause my freind is applying to both)


The QMUL one is accredited while the King's one isn't. Don't know why that is. But if your friend got offers from both they are better off going King's because they have a better experience in teaching medical allied courses and he/she is probably has a better chance of getting a job in that career path due to the big name of the uni. Also to mention a better campus; that Guys campus looks so much better than anything QMUL has and Kings has amazing facilities :smile:
Original post by TheMagican
A bit random, but is kings better than qmul for your course? (only asking cause my freind is applying to both)


Ofcourse it is,altho the degree isn't accredited by the institute of biomed
Reply 12
Original post by Landlord
No, UCL is great. Much better than King's and equal to LSE in social sciences (economics, politics) and humanities (law especially).


UCL is equal to LSE in Economics and Politics? Seriously? Only a few universities in the whole world are equal to LSE in these subjects, and those include institutions such as Harvard, MIT (economics), Chicago, and Yale. But UCL? No and no.
(edited 9 years ago)
:gasp:

How dare they accept people with BTECS!
Original post by Raymat
I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..


Hm, not sure if this applies to other subjects (I'm an offer holder for Biological Sciences), but here's my rationale in choosing UCL over imperial:

- UCL (or their faculty of life sciences) said it themselves they base their decision on whether or not to offer a candidate on ps and references, providing they meet their entry requirements (AAA). This suits me because I think biological sciences require far more skills than needed in A-level exams, such as 'seeing the big picture'.

- Although Imperial is more 'prestigious' in terms of rankings, it seems like UCL is very strong (or even stronger) in evolution which is a subject I want to utilise throughout my studies, including work in other modules.

- UCL's course structure suits me better as it appears to be more holistic. (In terms of looking at many different things, but at the angle of your specialisation if you do specialise.)

- UCL doesn't only do sciences and is highly ranked for most, if not all, of the subjects they offer. This means opportunity for interdisciplinary research with fields like geology, anthropology, philosophy of science, etc are easily possible.
Original post by MickeyL0912
Hm, not sure if this applies to other subjects (I'm an offer holder for Biological Sciences), but here's my rationale in choosing UCL over imperial:

- UCL (or their faculty of life sciences) said it themselves they base their decision on whether or not to offer a candidate on ps and references, providing they meet their entry requirements (AAA). This suits me because I think biological sciences require far more skills than needed in A-level exams, such as 'seeing the big picture'.

- Although Imperial is more 'prestigious' in terms of rankings, it seems like UCL is very strong (or even stronger) in evolution which is a subject I want to utilise throughout my studies, including work in other modules.

- UCL's course structure suits me better as it appears to be more holistic. (In terms of looking at many different things, but at the angle of your specialisation if you do specialise.)

- UCL doesn't only do sciences and is highly ranked for most, if not all, of the subjects they offer. This means opportunity for interdisciplinary research with fields like geology, anthropology, philosophy of science, etc are easily possible.


I know UCL is a great uni but if I get the offer for Biotechnology at Imperial I am going to chose Imperial over UCL. Reason is because the Biotechnology course is more interesting to me than Biochemical Engineering (more Biology the better and to be honest I'm not that interested in Engineering) and the Imperial brand name is better known than UCL. I do agree that UCL has a slight edge over Imperial for Medicine and Biosciences. Imperial is really strong when it comes to Maths, Engineering and Technology and it is mostly known for those field of courses while UCL is better for the remaining courses that Imperial do. Imperial is specialised for science and is seen as a science 'powerhouse' anyway so I'd pick Imperial over UCL without a doubt.
(edited 9 years ago)
OP - I got an AB offer from UCL for Biochemical Engineering, which is advertised as an A*AA course.

This is no real metric for prestige. It doesn't diminish their academic excellence, and from what I saw of that department, it was world-class.
Reply 17
Original post by Raymat
I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..

What's wrong with BTEC students?

Not everyone follows the same route in education why should they be restricted?

Most BTEC courses cover the same content as corresponding A levels, one does not nessecerily work harder than another, BTEC really allows students to engage with a particular subject area, and are arguably more qualified than some A level students ,

for example some one with and Extended diploma in IT could be more equipped for a degree in CompSci and then follow a career in Software Engineering rather than some one with traditional science A levels in Maths, Chemistry and Physics.

Why should they not be allowed to study their subject area at the top level after spending so much time and effort studying it?
Original post by i.am.lost
OP - I got an AB offer from UCL for Biochemical Engineering, which is advertised as an A*AA course.

This is no real metric for prestige. It doesn't diminish their academic excellence, and from what I saw of that department, it was world-class.


So you're resitting your A levels? Only 2 grades

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Raymat
I cant take Uni league tables seriously anymore and I think they're a bit of a joke. Last year UCL were ranked 4th and this year they are ranked 5th by QS internationally. Dont know if this has anything to do with QS being British because if so they could be being biased. This is really a joke because atleast 10 of America's unis can pound UCL in terms of standards and quality overall. I have applied to UCL this year and received an unconditional offer to do BEng Engineering (Biochemical) even after I rejected them last year for Pharmacy MPharm. I don't even have a good academic record; having only AAAABBCCCD at GCSE and repeating year 12 after getting BDDE at AS. This is surprising because they were well aware of this and still gave me an offer. And they gave an offer without an interview!!! Is it because my course sucks or they are in the habit of giving offers without interviewing? Off course they don't do that with the big names such as Medicine, English, Economics and Law but for a Uni that is so highly respected shouldn't they interview all if not most applicants? I've even heard of offers given to students with terrible AS grades and dont seem to be anywhere near 'UCL material'. Also to mention they even accept some BTEC students into top courses!! I was in the impression that a uni that has achieved such a high reputation throughout the years would make entry requirements more stringent. Unis such as Imperial and LSE don't accept BTEC students which could be one reason why they are so highly respected and they are probably more deserving of their ranking because of this. I think UCL should stick to accepting purely academic applicants if they want to be able to compete with Imperial and LSE or else ill always see them as overrated. The reason why I say this is because they sometimes reject hard working A level students and give offers to BTEC students who might not have worked anywhere near as hard as some A level students and most likely slacked through GCSE unlike some A level students who would have worked hard even at GCSE. A uni that accepts quite a fair amount of BTEC students on par with Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial!!?? Please..


I don't think UCL is overrated, and to be honest I can see you struggling on the course with those grades. I guess they had a shortfall of applicants for that course.

What offer did they give you?

Quick Reply