The Student Room Group

Is Ivy League better than Russel Group?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by ETRC
If MIT was ivy it would take a dump on every UK university. MIT > Harvard > Cambridge anyways. Ivy league is better overall. Internationally there are about 8-10 UK unis that will pack a punch.


Cambridge > MIT.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Scurve
Durham is ranked higher than Edinburgh... and A2 is not rigorous at all... AP calculus BC is is a lot harder than A2 maths. LSE students cannot really compete with the likes of those in Cambridge or Harvard.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Edinburgh kills Durham for international prestige, research income, annual income, history, tradition, World rankings etc.

Scurve, UK league tables don't measure prestige well at all, just look at the likes of Surrey and Lancaster, they are 2nd rate universities at best.
Original post by asmuse123
WOAH!!!!!!! No way!Manchester is in the top 10 worldwide for employer's reputation. Only Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, Harvard, Melbourne, Stanford, MIT and Berkeley can boast that. This shows they produce world-class graduates which many employers worldwide know about.
Kings is way more prestigious/impressive to employers generally.A physics degree from Manchester rocks though.
Original post by ETRC
If MIT was ivy it would take a dump on every UK university. MIT > Harvard > Cambridge anyways. Ivy league is better overall. Internationally there are about 8-10 UK unis that will pack a punch.


Which, internationally, include Manchester, according to 27,000 employers worldwide in 2013.
Reply 44
Original post by Novelist
Edinburgh kills Durham for international prestige, research income, annual income, history, tradition, World rankings etc.

Scurve, UK league tables don't measure prestige well at all, just look at the likes of Surrey and Lancaster, they are 2nd rate universities at best.


I don't care about prestige but only academic rigour and Durham is greater than Edinburgh in that regard.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by EdCohen
Kings is way more prestigious/impressive to employers generally.A physics degree from Manchester rocks though.


Source? Another misleading view by someone who doesnt know a great deal. Manchester can hold its own with KCL in many subjects.
Original post by Magnus Taylor
KCL is poor nationally on rankings except medicine, law and war studies. Warwick is known particularly in India and China, which is why it has such a high level of international students from these BRIC countries
Looool so Kings is also poor for philosophy, business studies and dentistry ?
Original post by EdCohen
Kings is way more prestigious/impressive to employers generally.


Not in the UK, or worldwide. Manchester beats KCL in both criteria.
Original post by EdCohen
Looool so Kings is also poor for philosophy, business studies and dentistry ?


Go away kid Warwick bangs kings overall
The premise of this thread is almost unbelievably fatuous.
Original post by Scurve
I don't care about prestige but only academic rigour and Durham is greater than Edinburgh in that regard.

Posted from TSR Mobile


How do you know that? Ednburgh, back in 2000, made a decison to let in students from disadvantaged backgrounds on slightly lower grades, in order to broaden their intake. So they purposely let their UCAS tariff points average slip. If they didn't do this, they'd be in the 500-520+ points bracket easily. And they boast great courses such as Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, which Durham don't offer.
Original post by asmuse123
Not in the UK, or worldwide. Manchester beats KCL in both criteria.
Original post by Novelist
Source? Another misleading view by someone who doesnt know a great deal. Manchester can hold its own with KCL in many subjects.
A kings graduate is way more impressive to employers - ignore the tables...Its just that Manchester has like 50 billion grads looooool
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by heybaby
Ah. That's interesting! What do you think makes Cambridge it's equal and not Oxford?


what does it matter? Call it Oxford. The whole of what's in dispute is whether there are 8 UK universities of broadly equivalent calibre to the 8 in the Ivy League. My contention is that there are, though I'm unconcerned as to whether they are better, as good, or worse, and unsure how any of that could sensibly be determined.
Original post by EdCohen
A kings graduate is way more impressive to employers - ignore the tables.Its just that Manchester has like 50 billion grads looooool


The tables are decided upon by employers. Who would ignore them? Also, why does Imperial, LSE and Melbourne do better than KCL, then?
Reply 54
Original post by cambio wechsel
what does it matter?

It doesn't. My assumption was that your selection wasn't arbitrary and I drew contention with that. Thanks for clarifying your position.

PRSOM.
Original post by EdCohen
A kings graduate is way more impressive to employers - ignore the tables...Its just that Manchester has like 50 billion grads looooool


And KCL has lots of money to spend (NOT). Machester has £1 billion to spend on new developments.
Original post by Magnus Taylor
Go away kid Warwick bangs kings overall
Warwick is unknown internationally hahahIts just mediocre accountancy firms who hire warwick maths grads lolz
Original post by EdCohen
Warwick is unknown internationally hahahIts just mediocre accountancy firms who hire warwick maths grads lolz


You are unknown internationally
Original post by Novelist
And KCL has lots of money to spend (NOT). Machester has £1 billion to spend on new developments.
Well you don't say. It's a bigger uni.All I'm saying is that if someone had to recruit either a Economics Manchester grad or a Econ and Management Kings student. They would choose the latter.University of Manchester sounds so dull.
Original post by Magnus Taylor
You are unknown internationally
Lost the debate....so resorting to ad hominem attacks.....lolz

Quick Reply

Latest