5 best UK universities? (Excluding Oxbridge)

Original post by Beerus

Why warwick is considered better than manchester and kcl, even edinburgh and almost on par with ucl? According to QS,THE,ARWU etc it is behind them by a considarate margin.(even on prospects and rep it is below these on QS/THE) (It is also a bit below bristol too.) If it actually competes with these shouldn't it be like top 20-25 in all of these rankings instead of like 60th-90th? Same goes for Durham and mostly for St.Andrews. I know rankings are not the be-all end-all but it still seems a bit bizarre to me. :unsure:

When people big up Warwick on here, what they really mean is the Maths department. The university itself not in the same league as UCL/Imperial/LSE or even Bristol/Edinburgh/Durham/St. Andrews. Its peers are Nottingham/Bath/York/Exeter etc. It's a good university, probably top 10-15, but in the real world it's not considered better than Manchester or King's in most fields (except for Maths), especially not by employers. It's not harder to get into Warwick than those (except for Maths), in fact it has one of the highest offers rates in the Russell Group (even higher than Manchester and KCL). If it was really that prestigious and difficult to get into, they wouldn't give out offers to 85% of their applicants (compared to 49% at Edinburgh). It's just a standard 'good' university with an elite Maths school stapled to it. Yeah, one subject. Big deal.

When people say LSE/Imperial/UCL/Warwick, they should say 'Warwick Maths' to avoid confuson.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 483

Helg

8

LSE, ICL, UCL, Warwick (especially WBS), St Andrews

Reply 484

Original post by MaskOfKeaton

When people big up Warwick on here, what they really mean is the Maths department. The university itself not in the same league as UCL/Imperial/LSE or even Bristol/Edinburgh/Durham/St. Andrews. Its peers are Nottingham/Bath/York/Exeter etc. It's a good university, probably top 10-15, but in the real world it's not considered better than Manchester or King's in most fields (except for Maths), especially not by employers. It's not harder to get into Warwick than those (except for Maths), in fact it has one of the highest offers rates in the Russell Group (even higher than Manchester and KCL). If it was really that prestigious and difficult to get into, they wouldn't give out offers to 85% of their applicants (compared to 49% at Edinburgh). It's just a standard 'good' university with an elite Maths school stapled to it. Yeah, one subject. Big deal.

When people say LSE/Imperial/UCL/Warwick, they should say 'Warwick Maths' to avoid confuson.

Well i have seen it being praised as a top multifaculty uni, even if the maths dpt is their best. It is also considered good for arts, econs, business(arguably UK top 5 in these, according to rankings) and some say it is very good for certain life sciences even. Also high flyers seems to worship it :P I do not know if many agree that it is on par with just York Exeter and Nottingham.
I am not familiar with the uk system but i have read here that even if warwick offers many places, there is another requirement that has to be met to get accepted after that and most fail to meet that.
I believe that warwick is kinda still in it's infancy, if after a century or so it is still the same or worse on the global rankings, then it was possibly overhyped. If it is like top 15ish (globally) by then, it wasn't.
St Andrews is an ancient though. And it's global rankings are even in a worse shape than Durham and the likes. Which shouldn't been the case according to its recognition within the UK.

Reply 485

Original post by Beerus

Well i have seen it being praised as a top multifaculty uni, even if the maths dpt is their best. It is also considered good for arts, econs, business(arguably UK top 5 in these, according to rankings) and some say it is very good for certain life sciences even. Also high flyers seems to worship it :P I do not know if many agree that it is on par with just York Exeter and Nottingham.

It's really just an ordinary 'good' Russell Group university with some notoriety for doing consistently well in UK league tables, and has recently become some sort of model 'good' university. It's nothing special in reality. Also many RG Unis are considered top 5 for various subjects.

Original post by Beerus

I am not familiar with the uk system but i have read here that even if warwick offers many places, there is another requirement that has to be met to get accepted after that and most fail to meet that.

Again, when people say that, they're mainly talking about its Maths course. An awful lot of naive people on TSR believe its Maths reputation is somehow the same as its general reputation, unfortunately this is not the case. All you need is a personal statement and AAB (or even less) to study a course at Warwick. This is no different to most in the Russell Group.

Original post by Beerus

I believe that warwick is kinda still in it's infancy, if after a century or so it is still the same or worse on the global rankings, then it was possibly overhyped. If it is like top 15ish (globally) by then, it wasn't.
St Andrews is an ancient though. And it's global rankings are even in a worse shape than Durham and the likes. Which shouldn't been the case according to its recognition within the UK.

It's currently a very fashionable university to go to amongst a certain type of person, because on a superficial level it does well in UK rankings and people like the sound of 'Warwick'. In reality it's an unremarkable looking university, in a bad location. It's a 60s concrete university like UEA, it doesn't have much history, character or tradition, and it doesn't even have a particularly high private school intake.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 486

Blancosdos

17

Don't forget Warwick is a target for IB. That increases it's pull.

Reply 487

Original post by Blancosdos

Don't forget Warwick is a target for IB. That increases it's pull.

That's just one particular career path, going to a target university for that doesn't even increase your chances of getting into IB by that much. For the overwhelming majority of people this is irrelevant, merely an interesting bit of trivia.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 488

Original post by MaskOfKeaton

That's just one particular career path, going to a target university for that doesn't even increase your chances of getting into IB by that much. For the overwhelming majority of people this is irrelevant, merely an interesting bit of trivia.

Well, even if the hype comes from certain departments, the university as a whole is very popular among UK employers in almost every sector thanks to that concentrated hype. I surmise that Warwick is still very young to measure it's true calibre. But i hypothesize that if it produces great alumni and research in the comming years it could very well become a solid oxbridge rival along with the london greats. (They should improve it's architecture a bit though :tongue:

) If we compare it with unis of the same age and history its a solid top 10 even on the global field. (According to times higher edu at least, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-golden-age-universities-2017)
Maybe Warwick is a bubble that will burst eventually, maybe it's the next Stanford. Or maybe it is somewhere in the middle (most possibly) but i think it's too early to tell yet.

Reply 489

black1blade

19

Original post by kimberlybaskett

why do u exclude Oxbridge?

Ok, if excluding Oxbridge, I think the top 5 universities are Imperial College London, UCL, London School of Economics and political Science and finally Warwick.

It also depends on the subject u are studying. If u want natural sciences, the ranking maybe slightly different. It will probably be Imperial, UCL, Warwick Edinburgh and Durham. Durham's chemistry is really good.

Durham's physics seems pretty good too

Reply 490

black1blade

19

Warrick's maths and physics course is way better structured than durham's.

Reply 491

Original post by Beerus

Well, even if the hype comes from certain departments, the university as a whole is very popular among UK employers in almost every sector thanks to that concentrated hype. I surmise that Warwick is still very young to measure it's true calibre. But i hypothesize that if it produces great alumni and research in the comming years it could very well become a solid oxbridge rival along with the london greats. (They should improve it's architecture a bit though :tongue:

)

What are you basing this on? Did you read it on their website? Of course they're going to say that. This is no different to how most universities in the Russell Group advertise themselves.

It is very popular among UK employers, but so are several others in the Russell Group. Employers in most sectors consider the majority of the Russell Group to be of the same calibre. There's nothing special about Warwick that puts it above the rest, they're all generally very good. If you get a 2:1 or a 1st from a uni that normally requires AAB to get into, your prospects are the same.

Original post by Beerus

If we compare it with unis of the same age and history its a solid top 10 even on the global field. (According to times higher edu at least, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-golden-age-universities-2017)

Compared to other newer universities in the country, yes, it's definitely one of the better ones. But I don't see how it's any better than York, Exeter or Bath, or even Sussex really. Globally, I don't think so. Even if it is, this isn't relevant because almost every university in the global top 100-200 is at least a century old, I doubt anyone's gonna give it extra kudos just because it's younger. I think the fact it's younger will always be a signficant disadvantage; even as it gets older over time, all those other universities will also be much older.

Original post by Beerus

Maybe Warwick is a bubble that will burst eventually, maybe it's the next Stanford. Or maybe it is somewhere in the middle (most possibly) but i think it's too early to tell yet.

Or it will end up like Sussex (which went through a similar bubble in the 90s).

I think Warwick is in a very precarious position, because as soon as it falls out of the top 10 in any UK ranking, people will no longer be able to say 'it's never been outside the top 10', which is largely where its artificial reputation comes from. No one cared about Warwick before newspaper rankings were devised in the late 90s (which have since provided 6th formers with a distorted view of what the 'best' universities are).

The next Stanford... please tell me you're joking?! :eek:

Almost no UK university is up there with Stanford.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 492

Gem Thief

11

Where tf is London Met

dependant on subject

Original post by MaskOfKeaton

What are you basing this on? Did you read it on their website? Of course they're going to say that. This is no different to how most universities in the Russell Group advertise themselves.

High Fliers research placed it as the most targeted uni this year. This is just one table though, but overall it performs better than Exeter,Birmingham etc.

Original post by MaskOfKeaton

Compared to other newer universities the country, yes, it's definitely one of the better 60s universities. But I don't see how it's any better than York, Exeter or Bath, or even Sussex really. Globally, I don't think so. Even if it is, this isn't relevant because almost every university in the global top 100-200 is at least a century old, I doubt anyone's gonna give it extra kudos just because it's younger. I think the fact it's younger will always be a signficant disadvantage; even as it gets older over time, all those other universities will be much older.

Agreed, but after a uni hits certain age things start to stagnate for most part. I suggest about 150 years is where we can start getting a clear estimation. The early years is where the rising happens for most part.

Original post by MaskOfKeaton

The next Stanford... you're kidding, right?! :confused:

Almost no UK university is up there with Stanford.

Well ICL and UCL are somewhat close? (Both in the top 10 globally) Mostly mentioned stanford because its relatively new compared to most of the rest top 10 word unis. Same goes with ICL. Just an example that within 120 years or so it is possible for an institution to reach top 10 globally.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 495

Original post by Gem Thief

Where tf is London Met

Above Oxbridge so we can't mention it here.

Reply 496

Original post by Beerus

High Fliers research placed it as the most targeted uni this year. This is just one table though, but overall it performs better than Exeter,Birmingham etc.

And last year it was Manchester. And the year before that it was also Manchester. In other words it's always going to be a Russell Group university. This year it happens to be Warwick.

All that means is it fills certain criteria for whatever they're looking for. Different tables show different things. If you check out things like graduate earnings (such as the Alumni Rich List) you might find quite a different picture.

Original post by Beerus

Agreed, but after a uni hits certain age things start to stagnate for most part. I suggest about 150 years is where we can start getting a clear estimation. The early years is where the rising happens for most part.

Nothing is at all certain. Universities can gain and lose a lot of prestige even in a few years. Long-term reputation probably provides more stability than current reputation, which is why I think the age of the university is a massive positive factor if it's always been considered a 'good' university (hence most of the Russell Group), that means it will still probably be considered 'good' even years after you graduate. Warwick doesn't have that long-term reputation. It has high current reputation (on TSR), but that could fall apart the moment it's outside the top 10 in a UK ranking (which we all know are complete nonsense anyway, but sadly they do have some influence on people's perceptions of reputation). A similar thing happened to York when it used to rank very high, then suddenly it wasn't in the top 10 and it quickly became less popular among students, and suddenly got much lower entry tariffs etc. This was less than 10 years ago.

Original post by Beerus

Well ICL and UCL are somewhat close? (Both in the top 10 globally) Mostly mentioned stanford because its relatively new compared to most of the rest top 10 word unis. Same goes with ICL. Just an example that within 120 years or so it is possible for an institution to reach top 10 globally.

I'm not sure they are to be honest. ICL might be similarly difficult to get into (even then I'm not sure), but I doubt it's anywhere near as recognised worldwide. UCL definitely isn't as recognised or anywhere near as difficult to get into I'm afraid.

Although the Global league tables provide a more realistic view of what the best universities are, even they're a bit flawed. Those universities are only that high up because of the London bias. Stanford is probably a World top 10 university. I don't think any UK university other than Oxbridge seriously deserves to be in the World top 10.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 497

Cubone-r

21

Anyone mentioned Glasgow yet? (not being bias, lol).

Reply 498

RoyalBeams

17

Quoting HighFliers is a bit weak and can be misleading.

HighFliers look at the campuses employers visit. Employers approach to choosing which Universities to visit is by strategically spreading their visit geographically to maximise the reach of their recruitment budget. So the top universities in each region would do very well. Hence, why the likes of Manchester, Warwick, Nottingham and Leeds do well on HighFliers research. They are the top universities in their region.

This research does not show the prestige of a university or respect for a university [and its graduates] by employers. It just shows they are the top in their region and their region is one of the priority regions employers expense their budget to visit.
Here is a survey of employers in regards to the universities they respect or find prestigious.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/best-uk-universities-chosen-major-employers

Warwick was not even in the Top 20.Even if we somehow say there was some 'quirk' in the results that needs to be corrected, one can still confidently say after any adjustment, it is unlikely Warwick will jump up to the top 10 considering how far down it is.

One cannot say for sure which direction Warwick's prestige would head in the future, but one can say there was a time the likes of Sussex and Nottingham had similar period of flash in prestige, but today their's have diminished.

Warwick's historical prestige points have been:

a) High entry points
b) Being in the top 6 for IB hiring
c) Never been outside the Top 10 for local league tables
d) Moderately high starting salaries

Nothing more than this. It does not have the history other universities have, nor does it have the wealth of successful alumni, the finances or the global brand.

Its prestige point for having 'High entry points' (a) is fast waning. It is fast moving down the 'entry points' league table. Warwick that used to consistently Top 6 about ten years ago for entry points, is now number 13.

As people continue seeing international league tables that focus more on academics, prestige and achievement stuff, they are finding the local tables which tend to focus more on student happiness stuff as a joke, so (c) is waning too, even if it is just indirectly.

I think Warwick can hold on to (b) and (d), but 'IB hiring' (b) is only a section of the recruitment market. For 'High salaries' (d), it is and would likely continue being behind Oxbridge and the 'London Top 4'.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 499