Universities "Prestige" Ranking

They rested on their past glories while the other universities improved continously. Manchester dropped the ball.

Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial students are in a different class compared to the other universities (i dont say UCL or Warwick because some degrees are quite easy to get on there).

LSE and Imperial have some pretty damn easy courses to get into, some of them with entry requirements around BBB-ABB. Whereas ALL oxbridge courses pretty much require AAA (a very small number might require AAB).

PJ, I don't think this will ever happen.

JackDaniell. What you fail to acknowledge is that prestige is as much a cultural as a statistical thing.

Manchester is culturally not as prestigious as Durham, Bristol, Warwick, Edinburgh and I'm not really sure about St Andrew's, not knowing much about it.

So whilst it will do well in the THES rankings or whatever (in which it consistently kicks the likes of aforementioned Durham, Bristol and Warwick's arse), it still falls down on that cultural barrier within the U.K. Which is perhaps why it's considered better abroad than it is here.

manchester may not have a tsr white middle class bias, but regardless of this ****, manchester is definitely a big player, bigger than durham in academia, and akin to bristol.

manchester may not have a tsr white middle class bias, but regardless of this ****, manchester is definitely a big player, bigger than durham in academia, and akin to bristol.

Whatever, Durham and Bristol will continue to attract some of the best non-Oxbridge students purely because of their name. It's a self perpetuating thing.

To me, I don't really give a **** how many Nobel prizes have been won by x university or what it is currently researching. This is because:

a) at undergrad this doesn't affect me
b) I care about how the university I'm going to is traditionally seen by employers in my future profession and indeed most non-science based future professions. In which case Durham comprehensively outperforms Manchester.
c) I'm not a scientist which is where I understand Manchester's strength lies (I can understand how Manchester might be considered better in the sciences- Durham isn't really known for that, although I do understand it has a kick arse physics department).
d) Manchester has no gravitas of name about it, no beautiful architecture, it's just a large dingy metropolis. I want a place steeped in tradition, which has cobbly little streets and quaint little pubs.

Ultimately, I think we should leave it at that. I won't deny Manchester has much the larger endowment. I won't deny it puts out much more research than Durham, which is a vastly smaller university. But Manchester has no university glamour about it. When I think Manchester, I just think it's such a standard university, there's nothing a bit different about it. And this will keep pulling in the top students to Durham. I guarantee you.

Whatever, Durham and Bristol will continue to attract some of the best non-Oxbridge students purely because of their name. It's a self perpetuating thing.

To me, I don't really give a **** how many Nobel prizes have been won by x university or what it is currently researching. This is because:

a) at undergrad this doesn't affect me
b) I care about how the university I'm going to is traditionally seen by employers in my future profession and indeed most non-science based future professions. In which case Durham comprehensively outperforms Manchester.
c) I'm not a scientist which is where I understand Manchester's strength lies (I can understand how Manchester might be considered better in the sciences- Durham isn't really known for that, although I do understand it has a kick arse physics department).
d) Manchester has no gravitas of name about it, no beautiful architecture, it's just a large dingy metropolis. I want a place steeped in tradition, which has cobbly little streets and quaint little pubs.

Ultimately, I think we should leave it at that. I won't deny Manchester has much the larger endowment. I won't deny it puts out much more research than Durham, which is a vastly smaller university. But Manchester has no university glamour about it. When I think Manchester, I just think it's such a standard university, there's nothing a bit different about it. And this will keep pulling in the top students to Durham. I guarantee you.

Whatever, Durham and Bristol will continue to attract some of the best non-Oxbridge students purely because of their name. It's a self perpetuating thing.

To me, I don't really give a **** how many Nobel prizes have been won by x university or what it is currently researching. This is because:

a) at undergrad this doesn't affect me

Yes it does, it affects who teaches you.

Statistics, sources please.

Hee Hee! You think Manchester is a one trick pony? That's really quite funny. However, you are right that its reputation in science and engineering is massive, to discount this to prove your point, however, is ridiculous. I suppose that Imperial college is rubbish too?

Manchester has some very beautiful architecture, but it is just more modern that is all and it certainly isn't a dingy metropolis. To be honest, what you want out of a university matters diddly squat in the grand scheme of things, and is certainly not a justification for saying that it is not as good as another university.

Have you sepnt much time at the university? In fact, all the universities I visit are different and unique in their own special way. For every one person who likes Durham there will be another who likes Manchester. Small cobbled streets aren't everyone's cup of tea.

To be fair your argument is pretty unconvincing and is centred around what you, as an individual, see as important for a university. As I have discuss before on previous threads, there is a wide range of opinions on what is considered important about a university (in that discussion I used a similar example as you by saying that I thought that a university had to be good at sciences to be on my list, and hence omitted LSE - this would have, quite rightly, drawn critcisms if I had attempted to apply this generally, as you have done.

Because there is a Nobel prize in law. Or indeed most of the social sciences?

Well there is one in economics. However, my point was one of prestige of academic faculty within the academic world, not being specifically taught by nobel laureates themselves. Also, universities who have produced significant numbers of nobel laureates tend to be more aggresive in seeking to gain staff with highly quality research profiles (certainly in the UK).

Well considering there was a recent report about the unfounded bias in the law profession, this is nothing to shout about and something that certainly the law society is keen to address.

Yep, massively underwhelming, that's why most of its arts/social sciences departments got rated 5 at the last RAE. I think perhaps your perception and reality are not in agreement here.

A similar environment that they have absolutely no knowledge of? Many people apply to oxbridge not because of the collegiate systems or the quant streets but because they believe they are the best places to study. It is quite funny that you criticise me for being subjective when I was pointing out the subjectiveness of your comments.

The funny thing is that I shared your love of the small and old when I was choosing my universities, hence why, when rejected from Oxford, I went to St Andrews, but I can see that not everyone is the same. Many of my friends who applied to oxbridge also applied to 5 other big city universities because they were prepared to forgo the city life for oxbridge, but not for anywhere else. Now, having lived in a city for a while, I can see the attraction of it.

I've been to Manchester quite a bit more than that and over a longer period too I'll wager, the modernisation and face-lifts given to the university area running up to and following the merger have been very impressive.

Which scientists? Durham has both top class physics and chemistry departments and is an excellent place to study the physical sciences at the very least, they certainly aren't weak at all. It seems that TheBoosh is the one you disagree with and his is very firmly an artist.

Which people? I know many employers who would love a Manchester Biochem grad. Of course, you are talking about IB and city law (and the debate seems to be rolling on there a bit) because nothing else matters, does it?

What I am really wanting to say is that you can't really escape from the fact that Manchester is a big research player and is going to get much, much bigger in the near future. It is, in my opinion, an excellent university to study at with a bright future. Durham is also an excellent university to study at and I'm sure it has an equally bright future, but it just can't compete with the quantity and depth of research that Manchester has. I don't make these comments as a undergraduate with a bent on working in the city, I make these comments as a career reseacher who is interested in the quality of teaching and research at particular institutions. Your position colours your views, remember that.