Gold, Silver and Bronze Universities
Scroll to see replies
Who knows? - the theory was that the £9000 fees were only supposed to be charged by exceptionally good universities... they were almost universal from day one.
experts predicted that there'd be a price war amongst unis further down the pecking order... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/education-14556649
experts predicted that there'd be a price war amongst unis further down the pecking order... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/education-14556649
I'd prefer it was the courses that were ranked, rather than the establishment.
I went to a uni that was pretty rubbish. But my course was pretty good. The uni suffered because it tried to do everything and covered itself too thinly, but the engineering department (that I was in) was around the top 20.
That level of expertise should be noted, recognised and encouraged. The fact they had a *****y law course shouldn't affect that.
I went to a uni that was pretty rubbish. But my course was pretty good. The uni suffered because it tried to do everything and covered itself too thinly, but the engineering department (that I was in) was around the top 20.
That level of expertise should be noted, recognised and encouraged. The fact they had a *****y law course shouldn't affect that.
Original post by Drewski
I'd prefer it was the courses that were ranked, rather than the establishment.
I went to a uni that was pretty rubbish. But my course was pretty good. The uni suffered because it tried to do everything and covered itself too thinly, but the engineering department (that I was in) was around the top 20.
That level of expertise should be noted, recognised and encouraged. The fact they had a *****y law course shouldn't affect that.
I went to a uni that was pretty rubbish. But my course was pretty good. The uni suffered because it tried to do everything and covered itself too thinly, but the engineering department (that I was in) was around the top 20.
That level of expertise should be noted, recognised and encouraged. The fact they had a *****y law course shouldn't affect that.
That's the eventual plan in 3 or so years time.
Rating by subject area.
The level of admin and people required to do that is BIG though so it's all phasing in.
Original post by #ChaosKass
Finally, some much needed competition within the higher education sector. Not much, but it's a start. Now let's get these universities privatised, fees raised, loan system abolished, and we'll be on the right track.
Abolish student loans and raise fees so only people from filthy rich familes can afford to go to university like in times gone by? You seriously want this?
Original post by kingLAWZA
I mean there is 100+ uni's in the UK
will gold/silver/bronze be divided equally?
or will it be gold for the elite (oxbridge, london uni's etc) and other RG in silver? I highly doubt any RG is bad enough to get into bronze, with the likes of northampton
will gold/silver/bronze be divided equally?
or will it be gold for the elite (oxbridge, london uni's etc) and other RG in silver? I highly doubt any RG is bad enough to get into bronze, with the likes of northampton
They are expecting around 20% of universities to get Gold, 50-60% to get Silver and 20-30% to get Bronze
As explained in my post above - it's likely that a number of russell group universities (particularly the london ones) will struggle to make the criteria for Silver never mind Gold. Unless they can make an extremely strong case to explain WHY they're performing below the sector for the criteria then they're likely to be granted Bronze.
Original post by #ChaosKass
Finally, some much needed competition within the higher education sector. Not much, but it's a start. Now let's get these universities privatised, fees raised, loan system abolished, and we'll be on the right track.
You're like the little fly in the room that just won't go away.
Original post by Muttski
You're like the little fly in the room that just won't go away.
You know when you see a Facebook video of a dog jumping over a skipping rope, there's that one comment that's like "This is animal cruelty and everyone who laughs at this video supports animal cruelty. The dog is CLEARLY terrified but can't escape in time without getting hit by the rope so all he can do is jump against his free will knowing he's a puppet for your entertainment. My sons would never do that"?
That's her/him.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by #ChaosKass
Finally, some much needed competition within the higher education sector. Not much, but it's a start. Now let's get these universities privatised, fees raised, loan system abolished, and we'll be on the right track.
Why should loans be abolished? Why should they privatised? Why should fees be raised?
guys Chaos is obviously a troll.
however just a thought if the government really did get rid of the student loan then 1 of two things would happen.
1. private companies would step in to replace it, this already exists for students like me(who want to do a second degree) but they charge 11.2% APR. I lack the expressive skills to quite sum up how ridiculous it would be to take an 11.2% APR loan to do a maths degree. Other subjects it shows stupidity, However to demonstrate such a massive lack of understanding of basic mathematics to get the funds to fund a degree you should not be on wow. TBH this is the likely scenario. (likely scenario been loan sharks not me been stupid enough to take that stupid loan)
2. if this did not work the universities would have to move to much higher figures for foreign students or significantly reduce their tuition fees. its supply and demand their just simply are not enough potential students sitting around with £30000+ in a bank account to fund a degree. Whilst I am sure parents like to support their children most parents do not have those funds.
So the only way universities could survive with the abolition of the student loan would be to see students get really screwed by real loan sharks or for our universities to cater to the rest of the world but not really to our own students. Remember that a lot of other countries give grants loans and subsidies for their students to study internationally.
I do think we should cut or eliminate student loans/ funding for students that go to weaker universities like the real crud holes that offer little value and career progression. I am all for the free market if people really have £30000+ and want to spend it studying Mickey mouse history at Big Johns Super Chav University more power to them, I just don't think the tax payer should ultimately be footing that bill.
however just a thought if the government really did get rid of the student loan then 1 of two things would happen.
1. private companies would step in to replace it, this already exists for students like me(who want to do a second degree) but they charge 11.2% APR. I lack the expressive skills to quite sum up how ridiculous it would be to take an 11.2% APR loan to do a maths degree. Other subjects it shows stupidity, However to demonstrate such a massive lack of understanding of basic mathematics to get the funds to fund a degree you should not be on wow. TBH this is the likely scenario. (likely scenario been loan sharks not me been stupid enough to take that stupid loan)
2. if this did not work the universities would have to move to much higher figures for foreign students or significantly reduce their tuition fees. its supply and demand their just simply are not enough potential students sitting around with £30000+ in a bank account to fund a degree. Whilst I am sure parents like to support their children most parents do not have those funds.
So the only way universities could survive with the abolition of the student loan would be to see students get really screwed by real loan sharks or for our universities to cater to the rest of the world but not really to our own students. Remember that a lot of other countries give grants loans and subsidies for their students to study internationally.
I do think we should cut or eliminate student loans/ funding for students that go to weaker universities like the real crud holes that offer little value and career progression. I am all for the free market if people really have £30000+ and want to spend it studying Mickey mouse history at Big Johns Super Chav University more power to them, I just don't think the tax payer should ultimately be footing that bill.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by #ChaosKass
Finally, some much needed competition within the higher education sector. Not much, but it's a start. Now let's get these universities privatised, fees raised, loan system abolished, and we'll be on the right track.
Shut up and go take your disgusting hateful views somewhere else.
Original post by BobBobson
So people don't waste 9 grand a year going to Angila Ruskin.
I feel a bit sorry for Anglia Ruskin - they always seem to be picked on as a joke college, but actually they are mid-table on most and there are plenty 'worse' than them.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I feel a bit sorry for Anglia Ruskin - they always seem to be picked on as a joke college, but actually they are mid-table on most and there are plenty 'worse' than them.
There are over 120 universities not sure on exact count. Been mid table is been 60th I would prefer to avoid universities that cannot make the top 20 if I can. I definitely want to avoid ones that cannot make the top 50.
http://university.which.co.uk/anglia-ruskin-university-a60
18000 average graduate salary? That is only £2700 (after tax) more then min wage once you factor in bonuses things like time and a half etc your better of working menial labor/shelf stacking then you are when you graduate.
here is Bristol
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-bristol-b78
£6000 better off
Here is Bath
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-bath-b16
just under £7000
Here is Cardiff
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-bath-b16
Just under £5000
Here is Nottingham
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-nottingham-n84
£5000
Here is Surrey
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-surrey-s85
£5500
here is Cambridge
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-cambridge-c05
£7500
Here is Oxford
http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-oxford-o33
Just under £7000
note the figures are for after tax and rounded and these figures are only rough guides I mean i am sure Oxford graduates do better then Bath graduates but I could go on and on and on with more universities.
There is a reason people slate Anglia Ruskin, if you want to set your money alight feel free to do so. A lot of us however wish to make a good choice before we commit a large amount of time and resources.
Original post by Voi
I hope the Russell group Unis will be gold. I hope whoever designs this system doesn't just look at the league tables and says 'top 10 = gold, top 20= silver, and bronze for the rest'. I hope it is worked out fairly and properly. Obviously, I expect the ex-polys to be mostly bronze, but what about those unis in between Russel group and ex-poly, like Reading for example. Would they be silver universities? The whole idea seems flawed. It seems a bit too far to reduce and summarise everything about a universities to one word. There are many different types of unis out there, each with their own specialisation. The methodology used in this gold/silver/bronze must not be too simple/reductive, else it will mislead students and damage universities forever.
Completely agree, unis like Plymouth are all around pretty mediocre, but they specialise in certain subjects such as marine biology which they are ranked one of the best in the U.K in. Sound a bit stupid really every uni specialises in certain subjects
for those that are interested I completed my list of total graduate salary averages. I am aware for certain institutions figures can be wrong based on sample size or other factors but for 127 institutions the general picture has a high probability of been accurate. Also remember this for the institutions as a whole, they may be much better/worse for specific subjects.
it is unlikely that the averages should be far off for many institutions though because I heard somewhere that they only needed 7 to post an average for a subject (not saying this is true this is what I have been told.) even if that is true with the vast majority of universities doing 100+ courses that would mean several hundred students per institution min.
anyway notable trends of the 127 universities from http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects
the average graduate salary appears to be (assuming I made no mistakes and I think the occasional mistake wouldn't throw this out to anything significant anyway) the average salary for graduates is £20367 this figure has to be wrong though because obviously some universities will have more students then others and my figures assume all universities have the same amount of students.
that been said the figures also show that for the top 64 universities there were only 5 where the graduate salary was =<18000
for the next 63 universities the there were 29 universities which were =<18000 I chose 18000 because that's was the average figure for Anglia Ruskin and there seems to be debates about this university at the mo.
Clearly Anglia Ruskin is not the very worst university out there but it doesn't exactly do well.
the average for the top 64 was 21650 where as the average for the bottom 63 was 19065. for the most part this league table seems alright but it does have some peculiarities and as others have said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
there was only a single Russel group university that scored below average for graduate salary and that was Queens Belfast. every other Russel group university scored higher.
of notable mention non Russel group universities
Loughborough, Surrey, Bath and City University London scored an entire standard deviation above the average. With Bath and LoughBorough scoring two standard deviations above the average.
St Andrews, Lancaster and Reading all scored above average I mention these three as they get mentioned a lot. However nothing notable from any of them. I really don't care whether Prince William went there.
I do think my data has its weaknesses I will be the first to admit that however I think the overall it creates a pretty clear picture, don't go somewhere ****, Anglia Ruskin is bad.
I am glad I did this research because it did bring me to the attention of Bath who were already on my Radar and Loughborough and Surrey who were not. it also helped me realize that I should avoid Liverpool for maths, also that whilst Lancaster and St Andrews are above average for both Maths and in general they are nothing special for either and I should not focus too much on them. Sure I can justify going their but their are better places to go with lower grade requirements so it won't happen unless i do bad and still get there by clearing or something.
it is unlikely that the averages should be far off for many institutions though because I heard somewhere that they only needed 7 to post an average for a subject (not saying this is true this is what I have been told.) even if that is true with the vast majority of universities doing 100+ courses that would mean several hundred students per institution min.
anyway notable trends of the 127 universities from http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects
the average graduate salary appears to be (assuming I made no mistakes and I think the occasional mistake wouldn't throw this out to anything significant anyway) the average salary for graduates is £20367 this figure has to be wrong though because obviously some universities will have more students then others and my figures assume all universities have the same amount of students.
that been said the figures also show that for the top 64 universities there were only 5 where the graduate salary was =<18000
for the next 63 universities the there were 29 universities which were =<18000 I chose 18000 because that's was the average figure for Anglia Ruskin and there seems to be debates about this university at the mo.
Clearly Anglia Ruskin is not the very worst university out there but it doesn't exactly do well.
the average for the top 64 was 21650 where as the average for the bottom 63 was 19065. for the most part this league table seems alright but it does have some peculiarities and as others have said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
there was only a single Russel group university that scored below average for graduate salary and that was Queens Belfast. every other Russel group university scored higher.
of notable mention non Russel group universities
Loughborough, Surrey, Bath and City University London scored an entire standard deviation above the average. With Bath and LoughBorough scoring two standard deviations above the average.
St Andrews, Lancaster and Reading all scored above average I mention these three as they get mentioned a lot. However nothing notable from any of them. I really don't care whether Prince William went there.
I do think my data has its weaknesses I will be the first to admit that however I think the overall it creates a pretty clear picture, don't go somewhere ****, Anglia Ruskin is bad.
I am glad I did this research because it did bring me to the attention of Bath who were already on my Radar and Loughborough and Surrey who were not. it also helped me realize that I should avoid Liverpool for maths, also that whilst Lancaster and St Andrews are above average for both Maths and in general they are nothing special for either and I should not focus too much on them. Sure I can justify going their but their are better places to go with lower grade requirements so it won't happen unless i do bad and still get there by clearing or something.
Original post by abc:)
So this is one way that English universities are going to be categorised, phasing in from next year:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/29/english-universities-ranked-gold-silver-and-bronze
What are people's thoughts on this?
- Why has this been decided?
- What effect might it have?
- Which universities will receive which rating?
- Do you think it's a good idea?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/29/english-universities-ranked-gold-silver-and-bronze
What are people's thoughts on this?
- Why has this been decided?
- What effect might it have?
- Which universities will receive which rating?
- Do you think it's a good idea?
From what the University of Hull are telling me, I think they would be a gold
Original post by Kyx
From what the University of Hull are telling me, I think they would be a gold
the university of Hull has an average graduate Salary of £20000 they are below the average but not by much. Having said that the averages are pulled down a lot by the weaker institutions so this is still a poor figure.
On the other hand I have heard positive things about Hull in terms of their support for students and openness. It is not somewhere I would like to go but there are many universities that are worse.
I would think it harsh to label them bronze but not really harsh, I would probably say they should just scrape Silver. Labeling them gold though would be a joke and make a mockery of the Hull
thing.Original post by Luke7456
for those that are interested I completed my list of total graduate salary averages. I am aware for certain institutions figures can be wrong based on sample size or other factors but for 127 institutions the general picture has a high probability of been accurate. Also remember this for the institutions as a whole, they may be much better/worse for specific subjects.
it is unlikely that the averages should be far off for many institutions though because I heard somewhere that they only needed 7 to post an average for a subject (not saying this is true this is what I have been told.) even if that is true with the vast majority of universities doing 100+ courses that would mean several hundred students per institution min.
it is unlikely that the averages should be far off for many institutions though because I heard somewhere that they only needed 7 to post an average for a subject (not saying this is true this is what I have been told.) even if that is true with the vast majority of universities doing 100+ courses that would mean several hundred students per institution min.
It's true - it's a restriction placed on the publication of the data by HESA - https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/destinations
anyway notable trends of the 127 universities from http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects
the average graduate salary appears to be (assuming I made no mistakes and I think the occasional mistake wouldn't throw this out to anything significant anyway) the average salary for graduates is £20367 this figure has to be wrong though because obviously some universities will have more students then others and my figures assume all universities have the same amount of students.
the average graduate salary appears to be (assuming I made no mistakes and I think the occasional mistake wouldn't throw this out to anything significant anyway) the average salary for graduates is £20367 this figure has to be wrong though because obviously some universities will have more students then others and my figures assume all universities have the same amount of students.
Yeah that's wrong
The mean salary is £21,500, the media is £21,000
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/dlhe_1415_table_K.xlsx
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/destinations-2014-15/introduction
You don't seem to understand the source data you're working with so it isn't a surprise that you're coming up with junk data.
Only 78% of graduates responded to the survey. Of those only 60% of first degree graduates are in full time employment 6 months after graduating. Only 72% of those disclosed their salary.
You're basing your judgement on data supplied by 1/3 of graduates...and you have no guarantee that what they told the survey was correct.
that been said the figures also show that for the top 64 universities there were only 5 where the graduate salary was =<18000
for the next 63 universities the there were 29 universities which were =<18000 I chose 18000 because that's was the average figure for Anglia Ruskin and there seems to be debates about this university at the mo.
Clearly Anglia Ruskin is not the very worst university out there but it doesn't exactly do well.
the average for the top 64 was 21650 where as the average for the bottom 63 was 19065. for the most part this league table seems alright but it does have some peculiarities and as others have said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
there was only a single Russel group university that scored below average for graduate salary and that was Queens Belfast. every other Russel group university scored higher.
of notable mention non Russel group universities
Loughborough, Surrey, Bath and City University London scored an entire standard deviation above the average. With Bath and LoughBorough scoring two standard deviations above the average.
St Andrews, Lancaster and Reading all scored above average I mention these three as they get mentioned a lot. However nothing notable from any of them. I really don't care whether Prince William went there.
I do think my data has its weaknesses I will be the first to admit that however I think the overall it creates a pretty clear picture, don't go somewhere ****, Anglia Ruskin is bad.
for the next 63 universities the there were 29 universities which were =<18000 I chose 18000 because that's was the average figure for Anglia Ruskin and there seems to be debates about this university at the mo.
Clearly Anglia Ruskin is not the very worst university out there but it doesn't exactly do well.
the average for the top 64 was 21650 where as the average for the bottom 63 was 19065. for the most part this league table seems alright but it does have some peculiarities and as others have said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
there was only a single Russel group university that scored below average for graduate salary and that was Queens Belfast. every other Russel group university scored higher.
of notable mention non Russel group universities
Loughborough, Surrey, Bath and City University London scored an entire standard deviation above the average. With Bath and LoughBorough scoring two standard deviations above the average.
St Andrews, Lancaster and Reading all scored above average I mention these three as they get mentioned a lot. However nothing notable from any of them. I really don't care whether Prince William went there.
I do think my data has its weaknesses I will be the first to admit that however I think the overall it creates a pretty clear picture, don't go somewhere ****, Anglia Ruskin is bad.
Anglia Ruskin had an average (mean) salary of £19,646 for full time graduates.
For part time graduates those numbers were a LOT higher (https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00360/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00322/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00352/ReturnTo/Search etc etc )...which is what you're missing with all your spreadsheets. Different universities are catering to different types of student. ARU has excellent part time provision and their full time provision is aimed mainly at local students.
Can I recommend you have a good read of http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/Year/2008/Counting,what,is,measured,or,measuring,what,counts/Title,93042,en.html before dismissing a university as "****" or "bad".
In fact - just read the title of that report.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Luke7456
the university of Hull has an average graduate Salary of £20000 they are below the average but not by much. Having said that the averages are pulled down a lot by the weaker institutions so this is still a poor figure.
On the other hand I have heard positive things about Hull in terms of their support for students and openness. It is not somewhere I would like to go but there are many universities that are worse.
I would think it harsh to label them bronze but not really harsh, I would probably say they should just scrape Silver. Labeling them gold though would be a joke and make a mockery of the Hull thing.
On the other hand I have heard positive things about Hull in terms of their support for students and openness. It is not somewhere I would like to go but there are many universities that are worse.
I would think it harsh to label them bronze but not really harsh, I would probably say they should just scrape Silver. Labeling them gold though would be a joke and make a mockery of the Hull
thing.Graduate salary is not one of the metrics that is used for determining whether a university will be bronze, silver or gold.
Original post by PQ
It's true - it's a restriction placed on the publication of the data by HESA - https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/destinations
Yeah that's wrong
The mean salary is £21,500, the media is £21,000
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/dlhe_1415_table_K.xlsx
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/destinations-2014-15/introduction
You don't seem to understand the source data you're working with so it isn't a surprise that you're coming up with junk data.
Only 78% of graduates responded to the survey. Of those only 60% of first degree graduates are in full time employment 6 months after graduating. Only 72% of those disclosed their salary.
You're basing your judgement on data supplied by 1/3 of graduates...and you have no guarantee that what they told the survey was correct.
what would skewed my data is it not take into account student numbers at the varying universities. believing that some students might lie is one thing but believing that this could be a common trend that applies to some universities over others is not. Data from a 1/3 of graduates is actually a very good sample size. statistically in industries you would usually take a much smaller sample size. How familiar are you with standard deviations? If you are taking data from a third of all students who attend a certain university it would be very weird if this varied much from the average of the data you would get from taking 100%.
Anglia Ruskin had an average (mean) salary of £19,646 for full time graduates.
For part time graduates those numbers were a LOT higher (https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00360/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00322/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00352/ReturnTo/Search etc etc )...which is what you're missing with all your spreadsheets. Different universities are catering to different types of student. ARU has excellent part time provision and their full time provision is aimed mainly at local students.
this is still a pretty poor figure
Can I recommend you have a good read of http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/Year/2008/Counting,what,is,measured,or,measuring,what,counts/Title,93042,en.html before dismissing a university as "****" or "bad".
I really don't see how this contradicts what I say I read the conclusion. it highlights the importance of league tables. whilst they can be misleading and inaccurate in places overall they tend to be a good guide except for the guardian.
In fact - just read the title of that report.
Yeah that's wrong
The mean salary is £21,500, the media is £21,000
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/dlhe_1415_table_K.xlsx
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/destinations-2014-15/introduction
You don't seem to understand the source data you're working with so it isn't a surprise that you're coming up with junk data.
Only 78% of graduates responded to the survey. Of those only 60% of first degree graduates are in full time employment 6 months after graduating. Only 72% of those disclosed their salary.
You're basing your judgement on data supplied by 1/3 of graduates...and you have no guarantee that what they told the survey was correct.
what would skewed my data is it not take into account student numbers at the varying universities. believing that some students might lie is one thing but believing that this could be a common trend that applies to some universities over others is not. Data from a 1/3 of graduates is actually a very good sample size. statistically in industries you would usually take a much smaller sample size. How familiar are you with standard deviations? If you are taking data from a third of all students who attend a certain university it would be very weird if this varied much from the average of the data you would get from taking 100%.
Anglia Ruskin had an average (mean) salary of £19,646 for full time graduates.
For part time graduates those numbers were a LOT higher (https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00360/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00322/ReturnTo/Search https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10000291PT-K00352/ReturnTo/Search etc etc )...which is what you're missing with all your spreadsheets. Different universities are catering to different types of student. ARU has excellent part time provision and their full time provision is aimed mainly at local students.
this is still a pretty poor figure
Can I recommend you have a good read of http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/Year/2008/Counting,what,is,measured,or,measuring,what,counts/Title,93042,en.html before dismissing a university as "****" or "bad".
I really don't see how this contradicts what I say I read the conclusion. it highlights the importance of league tables. whilst they can be misleading and inaccurate in places overall they tend to be a good guide except for the guardian.
In fact - just read the title of that report.
Comments in italics.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Interchanging Silver and Gold DofE
- Intermediate UKMT
- Senior physics challenge worth including silver result if applying to oxford
- Is DoFe actually useful for university applications
- Can I get into Cambridge or Imperial engineering without doing well in olympiads?
- UKMT + how this affects me getting into oxbridge
- silver stem crest award
- Is DoFe worth it
- DofE question
- oxford chemistry
- Dofe
- your question's answered IDEA bronze and silver
- Asians here, predict how many medals will your team get in the Asian Games?
- bronze duke of edinburgh
- iDEA bronze, silver, gold award website
- Which Peel Park Quarter rooms look out over the parks?
- Arts award?
- 2024 Senior Physics Challenge Award Score Line is?Look forward to reply
- IMC
- BPhO Round 2 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
