Is Ivy League better than Russel Group?

I don't know what sport is played in the ivy league but its probably nothing to do with the russel group.

I presume the BUCS league is similar to the Russel group.

Anyway for sake of argument because the USA is a much larger country than the UK the Ivy league is ahead of the Russel group and much stronger academically.

Tbh I feel like only Oxbridge can compete with the Ivy League. Am I wrong in this? I mean to me it makes sense since America is bigger than the UK, so it needs 8 "Oxbridges" . Don't know how sound this analogy is.

So we're arguing whether a sports league is better than the Russel groups what?

indeed the american universities alumni are a lot more into donating back to their universities so far larger doweries oxford has about $4billion if i remember rightly Harvard is vastly larger as an example.
Then again to compare a grouping is a bit silly for instance UCL and certain other unis in the UK have far better med schools than most american IVY league schools but either way we still have an excellent university system better than most and like our alevels highly respected around the world

There is no doubting that the system here is better.

No they don't. That's the total endowment. Not annual funding!

Harvard had an operating LOSS of $34 million in 2013.

Cambridge endowment is about £5 billion. Not as much as Harvard (or Oxford for that matter) but not bad.

To be clear, Harvard total annual income is about £2.8 bn. Cambridge is £1.5 bn.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Source? Sounds like BS to any rational person.

Source of what? Harvard's operating lose?

Ok, how about Harvard Annual Report 2013
http://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/2013fullreport.pdf
"We write to report on the University’s financial positionand results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. The current year deficit of approximately $34 million isslightly less than 1% of the University’s revenue – andin that context the deficit, while still meaningful, ismanageable. However, the ability to stay in financialbalance going forward depends in large part on aninstitutional commitment to cost management and anembrace of innovative revenue opportunities."

Please don't call me a BS - especially when you're the dude misquoting medicine costs.

It costs 300k to get a doctor trained through a university over 5 years. And read the below on Harvard:-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-28/harvard-beats-stanford-raising-record-1-16-billion-in-a-year

As has been pointed out in detail by others much more qualified than me, the £300k figure is not the cost borne by the universities. The NHS pays most of it as their investment in the country's healthcare. And that's also why medicine places are subject to quotas.

And I certainly don't deny Harvard have a massively strong and successful fundraising effort. It's clear they do, and it's a large part of that £2.8 billion annual income figure I quoted above. And Harvard will be saying thank goodness for it otherwise that operating loss would be larger.

It costs 300k to get a doctor trained through a university over 5 years.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_training_doctors_from_ov

"Thank you for your enquiry about the cost of training doctors from overseas and the EU. You quote a figure of £237,000 to train a doctor. Unfortunately, we cannot verify that figure and it is not one which Imperial College holds information on or is responsible for. The cost of training doctors in the UK is split in a complex way between universities and the NHS. Much of the training for medical students is provided by medical consultants employed and paid for by the NHS - universities do not have access to these costs. The NHS provides this training in return for clinical services for their patients being provided by academic staff employed by the university. Additionally, the teaching hospitals in which medical students spend much of their time receive a special allowance (called SIFT) which compensates them for the additional cost of accommodating these students. It is therefore not possible for us to provide a figure for the cost of training doctors, so we cannot say whether overseas students are being subsidised by the UK taxpayer, or not. For information, though, for EU students, you will need to add to the tuition fee they pay to the university the government grant paid to universities by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for educating EU (non-UK) as well as UK medical students. This is about £5,860 for each of the science based years (1-3 at Imperial College) and about £15,660 for each of the clinically based years (4-6 at Imperial College). These sums include a 8% premium to compensate for the costs of operating in London. In addition HEFCE grants about £2,000 per home and EU clinical student for additional clinical costs incurred by the College.May we suggest that to get a fuller answer to your question you approach the Department of Health, who should have the NHS spend on training of doctors and will probably be able to access the HEFCE data for the country as a whole."

You're welcome.

(Oh, and what about retracting your cry of "BS"... nah, I didn't think so...)

Troll.

You didn't scroll down to see what govrnment estimates were. What you have highlighted in bold is irrelevant.

No you are missing the point. It costs the Gov (via the NHS) money to invest in medicine not the universities.

Anyway... Troll

Bye.

If you can provide the actual breakdown, I'd like to see it.

Don't run away with immature parting shots. Grow up larry.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001117/text/01117w09.htm

Mr. Denham: In the period between entry to medical school and full registration, it is estimated that training a doctor costs between £200,000 and £250,000. Doctors generally continue training after full registration. As the duration and nature of post-registration training varies greatly and as service and training costs are closely related it is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the total cost of training.

MIT should be on the top line.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The Ivy League as a sports league started in 1954, well after the eight universities had established their reputations for excellence. 'Ivy League' became a short hand for that excellence, nothing to do with sports, which are admittedly valued more highly in the United States.

Something like 20% of Harvard College undergraduates participate in sports, at different levels. Harvard fields teams in 42 intercollegiate sports, more than any institution in the world, carrying on the tradition of challenging body and mind.