username4583724
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
*delete this thread please*
Last edited by username4583724; 1 year ago
0
reply
dbgbrs
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Cambridge
Oxford
ICL
Warwick
UCL
Durham
St Andrews
3
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Varun_17)
Rank these Unis-
Cambridge
Durham
Imperial College London
Oxford
St Andrews
UCL
Warwick
in terms of what?
0
reply
username4583724
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
in terms of what?
As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Varun_17)
As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs
the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham
1
reply
username4583724
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham
What about UCL
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Varun_17)
What about UCL
UCL is one of those unis whose prestige lies in its reputation as a research powerhouse rather than being particularly selective for undergrad. i think selectivity is a far better indicator of prestige than research output - for example top Liberal Arts colleges in the US.

For maths specifically I would put UCL on par with with Durham, a bit below if we're really splitting hairs.
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Varun_17)
Rank these Unis-
Cambridge
Durham
Imperial College London
Oxford
St Andrews
UCL
Warwick
Oxford / Cambridge
Imperial
Warwick
UCL / Durham / St Andrews
1
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
the best guide for that is UCAS Tariff points on entry - the most prestigious unis attract the highest calibre students, i can give many examples of that.

however there is a 'Scottish qualification distortion' which inflates the UCAS points figures for Scottish unis. I see someone has made an FOI request for a breakdown which should give a better indication in the next month or so for St Andrews and Edinburgh.

But for English unis, Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, Warwick and then Durham
I would disagree. That'll use A-levels - which are not a good indicator of mathematical ability, hence the adoption of MAT/STEP/TMUA instead. STEP results will probably be the best indication of these, but these are obviously not formal qualifications so won't be recorded like this.
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
UCL is one of those unis whose prestige lies in its reputation as a research powerhouse rather than being particularly selective for undergrad. i think selectivity is a far better indicator of prestige than research output - for example top Liberal Arts colleges in the US.

For maths specifically I would put UCL on par with with Durham, a bit below if we're really splitting hairs.
Whilst its true UCL is a research powerhouse, its still very selective at undergrad. Its considered elite academically across the board, its certainly more known subject wise for the arts/humanities (and Imperial is more known for STEM) but they are both elite in all sectors as universities.
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by _gcx)
I would disagree. That'll use A-levels - which are not a good indicator of mathematical ability, hence the adoption of MAT/STEP/TMUA instead. STEP results will probably be the best indication of these, but these are obviously not formal qualifications so won't be recorded like this.
STEP would be great if all unis mentioned required it, was taken on more than one occasion and if the data was published! so we just have to go on where the general 'top' students are going for now
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by mnot)
Whilst its true UCL is a research powerhouse, its still very selective at undergrad. Its considered elite academically across the board, its certainly more known subject wise for the arts/humanities (and Imperial is more known for STEM) but they are both elite in all sectors as universities.
that true but for maths the UCAS tariffs are a bit less than the other unis implying slightly lower grades/less further maths students perhaps. as i said this is asperger's-level splitting of hairs here!
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Of these roughly speaking:

  • Cambridge
  • Oxford
  • Warwick and Imperial are about the same and are the two standard destinations for those who got rejected from Oxbridge. Warwick is typically stronger in research, (sometimes coming second between Cambridge/Oxford in intl rankings) but ranking one over the other for undergrad will probably come down to personal experience.
  • UCL
I think Durham/St. Andrews are around the same. I don't think they're generally considered "on the same tier" as those above. Bath/Bristol might be worth researching.
Last edited by _gcx; 1 year ago
1
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Varun_17)
As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs
Level of difficulty doesn't really make sense.
Real rankings is ambiguous.
Student satisfaction is not BS for its target audience.

Seems to me that you're looking for an objective answer to a question which inherently has subjective answers.
1
reply
zetamcfc
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Varun_17)
As in the level of difficulty/ prestige/ real rankings not student satisfaction or any of that bs
Not really a thing. Only thing you could do is rank how much detail each course of the same name goes into I guess.
1
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
Level of difficulty doesn't really make sense.
Real rankings is ambiguous.
Student satisfaction is not BS for its target audience.

Seems to me that you're looking for an objective answer to a question which inherently has subjective answers.
In defence of point 1 and 3:

  1. Not all degree courses are created equal, some will cover the content faster and go in more depth than others. It's important that the OP takes a degree course with a difficulty suitable for them so I think this is a sensible consideration.
  2. I think it's possible to give too much weight to student satisfaction and I'd say only pay attention to it if it's abnormally low. (which would be a concern even if the institution is academically strong, for example might indicate that their research is good but student support/teaching poor) Minor differences probably aren't indicative of anything. People at "top tier" universities will have quite high expectations of their course, the university, and its facilities so you might expect them to be lower. In any case, I think the main problem is that for most people, that university is the only one they've been to, they have no points of comparison so wouldn't be able to tell if stuff was comparatively sub-par unless it was a glaring problem. I think more concrete metrics generally are better for this reason.
Yeah unfortunately there are no objective answers when it comes to this sort of thing. Rankings are good for generally placing universities in your head but then differentiating between them for choices it's a poor method. I think by real rankings they were referring to those that did not overwhelmingly weight non-academic factors. (such as The Guardian) There is no substitute for first hand research into degree courses you're interested in. (looking at module catalogues, visiting the uni, talking to students)
Last edited by _gcx; 1 year ago
0
reply
NotNotBatman
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by _gcx)
In defence of point 1 and 3:

  1. Not all degree courses are created equal, some will cover the content faster and go in more depth than others. It's important that the OP takes a degree course with a difficulty suitable for them so I think this is a sensible consideration.
  2. I think it's possible to give too much weight to student satisfaction and I'd say only pay attention to it if it's abnormally low. Minor differences probably aren't indicative of anything. People at "top tier" universities will have quite high expectations of their course, the university, and its facilities so you might expect them to be lower. In any case, I think the main problem is that for most people, that university is the only one they've been to, they have no points of comparison so wouldn't be able to tell if stuff was comparatively sub-par unless it was a glaring problem. I think more concrete metrics generally are better for this reason.
Yeah unfortunately there are no objective answers when it comes to this sort of thing. Rankings are good for generally placing universities in your head but then differentiating between them for choices it's a poor method. I think by real rankings they were referring to those that did not overwhelmingly weight non-academic factors. (such as The Guardian) There is no substitute for first hand research into degree courses you're interested in. (looking at module catalogues, visiting the uni, talking to students)
With the first point, I meant I didn't know what he's referring to, difficulty in terms of entry requirements, course or something else? Each criteria is different for a prospective undergraduate, Masters, PhD student or Post doc researcher. Research intensity is going to be less important for an undergrad than it is for any other student. Some courses may not provide enough rigour to satisfy a students' needs, but is it really prestige which determines that ?

As for point 2, that is true, but the same can be said of other metrics. If Cambridge had declining teaching and research standards, it would probably still be at the top of the league tables because of 'prestige', on the other hand a "brand" can be advantageous for particular fields.

The bit in bold is what worries me.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by NotNotBatman)
With the first point, I meant I didn't know what he's referring to, difficulty in terms of entry requirements, course or something else? Each criteria is different for a prospective undergraduate, Masters, PhD student or Post doc researcher. Research intensity is going to be less important for an undergrad than it is for any other student. Some courses may not provide enough rigour to satisfy a students' needs, but is it really prestige which determines that ?

As for point 2, that is true, but the same can be said of other metrics. If Cambridge had declining teaching and research standards, it would probably still be at the top of the league tables because of 'prestige', on the other hand a "brand" can be advantageous for particular fields.

The bit in bold is what worries me.
I think it's safe to say he was referring to course difficulty. Though it's closely tied with entry requirements. High entry requirements generally imply high entry standards which in turn generally imply demanding course, since the course has to scale in difficulty with the ability of the cohort. "Prestige" I'd agree isn't very important. For example KCL and Manchester are famous internationally (I'd think for historical reasons?) but their undergraduate maths programme looks to be fairly (comparatively) mediocre.

I'm not sure. No league tables really have metrics for prestige. I'm not sure if any of them judge internationally recognisability in which case they can't really be competed with.
0
reply
MajorFader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Here we go...
0
reply
MadClown
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
Purely Undergraduate Level

Cambridge
---------------
Oxford
Imperial College London (A lot of Chinese students who are math geniuses but not too good at English.)
UCL / Warwick (I know Warwick is known for Math but international students who are good at Math go for the global reputation.)
Durham
St Andrews


I was an Imperial Math applicant myself and my flat mate studies Math at Imperial.
Also a lot of my classmates went to study Math at Warwick / UCL so from my experience, I'd rank it like that. (In terms of the quality of incoming students)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (2)
3.08%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (9)
13.85%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (10)
15.38%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (8)
12.31%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (25)
38.46%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (11)
16.92%

Watched Threads

View All