Is UCL the most overrated university?

I didn't say it’s the only measure; it is one of several indicators. Imperial didn't beat UCL for Chemistry, by the way.



Entry requirements are only an indicator of course popularity, not quality. I don't think they are relevant to this discussion. But for arguments sake, let's remember that UCL offers quite a lot of niche degrees (Old Norse, Serbian, Urban Studies etc) which don't attract nearly as many applicants therefore the entry requirements are understandably lower. That does not mean the people who do these degrees are less intelligent or achieve lower A level results than Imperial or LSE students.

Where is your evidence that UCL's position in those tables is "heavily boosted by medical and biological studies"? THE shows that UCL is 5th in the world for the humanities (2nd in UK). Surely that counts for something?



It does if that's what you want to study.



Evidence?

Their website and my impressions from open days there.

Their website does not say "we are meh at science, lack funding and our physics degree is easy". Your open day impressions are, frankly, irrelevant.

Entry requirements are only an indicator of course popularity, not quality.

But for arguments sake, let's remember that UCL offers quite a lot of niche degrees (Old Norse, Serbian, Urban Studies etc) which don't attract nearly as many applicants therefore the entry requirements are understandably lower. That does not mean the people who do these degrees are less intelligent or achieve lower A level results than Imperial or LSE students.

Where is your evidence that UCL's position in those tables is "heavily boosted by medical and biological studies"?

THE shows that UCL is 5th in the world for the humanities (2nd in UK). Surely that counts for something?

But that's because most of LSE's courses aren't arts courses. So not all of those 12k will feasibly consider a career in IB. Also, more students from Oxbridge probably enter academia (I have no source for this).

Also, there's the perception of LSE that it's just a conveyor belt for producing students that go to the city, which could lead to a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

It depends how you define arts/humanities degrees. Some people would include Economics and other social sciences.

Not really.

I mean it's 13th in the rankings now and I think that's perfectly fair

My cousin told me that UCL was the most overrated uni in the Uk. Do you agree with that?

@Hodor_van_Groot what do you think?

No, UCL is actually underrated - many of its departments are world leading and yet people always say LSE and Imperial are better.

This is what always makes me think how underrated LSE is (even though it is still highly rated). LSE only has about 4,000 undergrad students, Oxford has 11k, Cambridge 12k, and UCL 17k. Yet LSE still tops the lists for most undergrad students going into investment banking etc.

Equally one can cite UCL's position as the 4th best university in the world as evidence of being way above Imperial

Imperial has the enormous disadvantage of not being a multi disciplinary university

SOAS may be the leading UK university for Chinese Tea Studies but that does not make it superior to Oxford

But they are. Especially Imperial which blows it away. If you takenaway the prestige and bragging rights from Oxbridge, the gap between those unis and Imperial isn't even significant.


And while on the topic, UCLs engineering is genuinely mediocre.

It's not the most overrated uni in the UK though. That title belongs to Exeter or Queen Marys. But it's still overrated. Funnily enough, it's the people that attend UCL who critisize it the most. The only ones who rush to defend it when threads like this come up are usually aspiring students who want to study there one day

It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is @TeeEm's opinion.

But I have to admit, UCL deserves its status, mainly because THE Hodor van Groot studies there.

Undergrad population size =/= people interested in applying to investment banking/law/consulting/*insert top career here*.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well done for noticing it doesn't say that on its website, well done indeed. The website probably says somewhere how great they are though, I wonder if that's also something you consider to be evidence?

Not that I expect you to understand but besides the fact the entry reqs are AAA, the course structure (which you'd have looked up if you had some common sense instead of making some stupid remark) for physics simply is watered down which is apparent from looking on the website and to me even more so when comparing it to where I study. I honestly don't care what you think is irrelevant, my impressions are were line with those of the majority of people I know who go there and the relatively poor student satisfaction of teaching quality.

The sciences there are underfunded and that's been said on this site multiple times, you can choose to accept that or not, I honestly don't care.

First of all, the UCAS tariff I showed is not average entry requirement, but a result of how much university entrants actually achieved (2013-2014 entrants for 2016 rankings). So it's not what universities require, more like representing how much students achieved. The average UCAS tariff can be easily higher with lower entry requirements, or other way around sometimes.

Second, this is actually the main indicator of how people perceive students of some university. Just like you don't pay any attention about how smart students studying Physics at University of Manchester are, or how research standards in physics are superior at Manchester compared to UCL. Because you see University of Manchester as a whole university, and felt not outstanding at all.

Thirdly, UCL offers quite a lot of niche degrees. And Manchester offers even more niche degrees like Nursing, Music, Aural & Oral Sciences, and a lot more. So from your point, and ignoring academic merit (like you said), Manchester seems to be the top of the UK, because all other universities don't work hard enough to provide degrees in all subjects. Is this what you want to say?

I study at UCL and it is definitely overrated. Very pretentious university with inflated reputation. Only a person who studies at UCL would fully understand.

And while on the topic, UCLs engineering is genuinely mediocre.

I have already explained why entry requirements are not relevant. I did look at the physics course/modules - as far as I can tell, it isn't watered down - what modules is the degree lacking? Your impressions are based on hearsay and a visit to the open day, hardly enough experience to form a judgment about the place. Prove that UCL is underfunded.



I still maintain that the overall figures are skewed by the above average number of niche degrees UCL offers. UCL also has a higher proportion of mature and part-time students, these students may not have completed qualifications which awards UCAS points (e.g the Access to HE course).



I don't agree that most people view entry requirements as a quality indicator. Sixth Formers and TSR users perhaps, but who cares what they think? It is a mistaken viewpoint and it shouldn't be relevant in this debate.

Don't put words in my mouth, I know Manchester has a very good reputation for physics. I don't see Manchester (or any other university) as just a single unit, but a collection of departments. That is precisely why I think it's unfair to say Imperial is better than UCL, because for a very large number of subjects, it isn't.



Nursing and Music are not niche subjects. I don't understand what you mean re ignoring academic merit, I didn't say that. My point was that UCL offers more niche degrees than most universities, and certainly a lot more than LSE and Imperial - in consequence their entry requirements are lower.



Yeah, the whole university must be bad because the chemical engineering dept isn't great.



As far as I know, it is only chem engineering that lets UCL down. Their mech/civil/bio engineering courses are apparently very good.