University rankings in the UK

For undergraduate:

Oxbridge, then imperial lse st andrew durham ucl warwick bristol edinburgh or bath. Kcl or mamchester are better for post graduation and research, but undergraduate education and selectivity are definitely not as good as the others. World ranking measure research which has nothing to do with your undergraduate studies.

Reply 63

Original post by StarLinyx

Undergraduate research is important for the student to demonstrate research potential to universities and future employers. What is more, the most gifted researchers may get their work published if they are lucky. I am afraid St Andrews is overrated by people like you, and it just cannot compete with the great universities around the globe like Chicago, Sydney, UCL, KCL, Melbourne etc.

Chicago yes, kcl,Melbourne and Sydney no. In terms of undergraduate studies kcl is definitely not as good as st andrew. Research in undergraduate studies is not that important compare to other elements in general but obviously it depends on ur fields. St andrew might not be a great research power house but it is for sure a great one for Undergraduate studies. Unis like dartmouth notre dame Emory Georgetown are small unis focus on Undergraduate studies but you cannot say that they are worse then nyu. Kcl is not a bad choice for post grad but I have St andrew any day for undergraduate studies. I am not from St andrew but I do think St andrew is a very well respected uni. There is a reason why these unis have a higher entry standard and research is not everything to determine whether a university is good or not.

Reply 64

Original post by StarLinyx

1. Oxford, Cambridge

2. LSE, Imperial, UCL

3. Edinburgh, KCL

4. Manchester

5. Bristol, Glasgow, Warwick

6. Durham, St Andrews, Nottingham, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Exeter, York, Newcastle, Bath

7. Cardiff, Liverpool, QUB, QMUL, Lancaster, Aberdeen, Sussex, Leicester, UEA

I said earlier that grouping universities is difficult and unwise, but this is probably as accurate as I can see it, based mainly on international rankings, and domestic reputation. Lancaster and QMUL are a bit underrated IMO, and probably deserve to be in the 6. grouping, but their domestic reputation isn't as good as their international one. Likewise, Bath is highly regarded in the UK, but is not well known globally, and could easily have been placed in the 7. grouping.

There is more to choosing a university than these groupings and rankings, however. I don't like the city centre set-up of Manchester, and Durham seems like a nicer place to study for 3 years. Nottingham and Birmingham have lovely campuses, plus Edinburgh is just a gorgeous city. And I could go on and on.

Being well known among the general public does not mean it is a better uni. Eth,science po, uva notre dame, Vanderbilt might not be as famous as manchester but are by far better than manchester. Same thing apply to kcl and edinburgh, they might be famous among general public for research power, big cities and higher amount of international students, but that does not mean they are better than durham or St andrew for undergraduate education. If you go on the street in China India or anywhere else, many will tell u that they only heard of manchester instead of lse or durham or St andrew, but does it mean that manchester are better than the others? Take Hong Kong as an example, many merely heard of manchester, Birmingham or leeds simply because of football teams. However when you get to know people from academics, law firms, accounting firms, teachers, none will have said manchester is better than durham bath St andrew warwick bristol. Even for kcl and edinburgh as far as I know, most people from these fields will just view them same as durham st andrew warwick. bristol. For thr last couple of year I saw hundreds of students applying to uk unis and most would not have viewed kcl and edinburgh as better than the others for undergraduates. Domestic ranking are flawed but so as international ranking. If u check on international ranking Yale is around edinburgh level but could you say that edinburgh is better than yale? Famous does not neceesarily equivalent to being better. A basketball team like Lakers might be famous for legacy or larger cities but that does not mean they are a great team right now. Chelsea might be famous but they are not doing good now. Logan Paul might be a famous youtuber does not mean that his content is the highest one. Eventually it is nearly impossible to have make a uni ranking, reputation is more lieky to rest on the sheer vague impression from people who hold greater social status and power, not from whether it is famous among general people who barely know and care about universities.

Reply 65

Original post by aughit

For undergraduate:

Oxbridge, then imperial lse st andrew durham ucl warwick bristol edinburgh or bath. Kcl or mamchester are better for post graduation and research, but undergraduate education and selectivity are definitely not as good as the others. World ranking measure research which has nothing to do with your undergraduate studies.

I wish you saw this:

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/king-s-college-london-in-the-us/2085560/101

Before you said that.

Durham, Warwick, Bristol and Bath are in no way as selective at undergrad as KCL and (most not as) Manchester; at least not if we are judging based on the usage of data and statistics, instead of feelings and "someone said......".

The former have even improved. Before their offer rates were in the 80 percentages (4 out of 5 get offers). You apply with reasonably high grades, you get an offer in a couple of weeks was the norm. That is not selectivity.

Furthermore, they are also not as selective at postgrads compared to KCL and Manchester.

Reply 66

Original post by aughit

Chicago yes, kcl,Melbourne and Sydney no. In terms of undergraduate studies kcl is definitely not as good as st andrew. Research in undergraduate studies is not that important compare to other elements in general but obviously it depends on ur fields. St andrew might not be a great research power house but it is for sure a great one for Undergraduate studies. Unis like dartmouth notre dame Emory Georgetown are small unis focus on Undergraduate studies but you cannot say that they are worse then nyu. Kcl is not a bad choice for post grad but I have St andrew any day for undergraduate studies. I am not from St andrew but I do think St andrew is a very well respected uni. There is a reason why these unis have a higher entry standard and research is not everything to determine whether a university is good or not.

Again, you are wrong.

St Andrews has higher entry standards because it is a top university with a few places to fill. Another important factor are the types of courses on offer.

These are the factors why Caltech has higher entry standards than Harvard and Stanford too. It is very small and STEM-focused; not because Caltech is a more "respected" university than those two.

Manchester is a top university but with a lot of places to fill, hence entry standards cannot be as high as St Andrews. Same as Berkeley vs Caltech.

KCL is a prestigious university with far more places to fill than St Andrews and much of these places is in Nursing (where the university cannot demand high grades). This will obviously impact its average entry standard.

Another advantage for St Andrews is that top Scottish students would prefer it (competing with only Edinburgh and Oxbridge for them). KCL has to compete with about 8 universities for top London and South East students.

So, you are wrong for just looking at entry grades without critical analysis of your metric.

Reply 67

Original post by RoyalBeams

I wish you saw this:

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/king-s-college-london-in-the-us/2085560/101

Before you said that.

Durham, Warwick, Bristol and Bath are in no way as selective at undergrad as KCL and (most not as) Manchester; at least not if we are judging based on the usage of data and statistics, instead of feelings and "someone said......".

The former have even improved. Before their offer rates were in the 80 percentages (4 out of 5 get offers). You apply with reasonably high grades, you get an offer in a couple of weeks was the norm. That is not selectivity.

Furthermore, they are also not as selective at postgrads compared to KCL and Manchester.

Wrong, if you are to argue and make judgment do not simply just copy a random, unprofessional comment on the internet, bear in mind. Furthermore according to your data, neither kcl or Manchester has a higher entry standard than durham but you simply neglect it. As for postgrad, I agree that kcl will be as competitive as durham or St andrew, if not more. However for Manchester, it relies heavily per subjects. For business and physics, manchester might have the lead, but for humanities Manchester fell short.

Reply 68

Original post by aughit

Wrong, if you are to argue and make judgment do not simply just copy a random, unprofessional comment on the internet, bear in mind. Furthermore according to your data, neither kcl or Manchester has a higher entry standard than durham but you simply neglect it. As for postgrad, I agree that kcl will be as competitive as durham or St andrew, if not more. However for Manchester, it relies heavily per subjects. For business and physics, manchester might have the lead, but for humanities Manchester fell short.

Sorry, but according to the data, KCL selects fewer applicants than Durham, gets higher acceptance of the offer made than Durham does but only has a lower average entry tarriff than Durham because it is larger and because it has a large nursing intake (1 out of 6 of its intake). So, KCL is more selective than Durham.

According to the data, Manchester selects fewer applicants than Durham, it has a lower acceptance of the offer made than Durham does and has a lower average entry tarriff than Durham because it is far larger. So, Durham is more selective than Manchester.

I did not ignore anything and it is a comment backed up with data; not random as you might hope you can argue.

Selectivity is about "selecting" and the quality of people keen on getting in but cannot. If an institution is selecting every top student that it sees, it is not that selective. Just like if a girl is selecting to sleep with every 6 foot, 6 pack and 6 figure guys she meets, she cannot claim to be that selective.

As for postgraduate, the tiers are:

1. Oxbridge
2. Imperial, UCL and LSE
3. KCL, Edinburgh, Manchester
4. Bristol, Wariwck, Nottingham, Leeds, Birmingham, York, Birmingham, Glasgow, Southampton

You will see that these universities tend to have the highest budgets and highest number of postgrad students. That is not by accident, that is by design of the government based on how good they are in research (backed up by how they are the Top UK univerisities on global rankings). Postgrad students love to go to the places respected and well funded for research; otherwise the foreign ones would stay in their home countries to do postgrad in poorly funded institutions.

KCL is not "as competitive" as Durham for postgrad, it is MORE competitive! Manchester too is more competitive.

Reply 69

Ogulalo

Original post by ajohn2222

As an international candidate, I have created and categorized a “general ranking” of top 20 UK universities based on the various rankings and websites.

←better
S Cambridge, Oxford

A Imperial, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Edinburgh

B Durham, Nottingham, St Andrews, Bristol, Bath

C York, KCL, Southampton, Sheffield, Exeter, Manchester, Leeds, Lancaster

Please tell me how you feel about this ranking and category.

Please note that this ranking is based on the following.
The Complete University Guide
The Guardian University Guide
QS Ranking
THE Ranking
A lot of opinions from The Student Room and YouTube

This is so pointless and unnecessary. Also subject specific rankings are way more important than overall rankings.

Apart from oxbridge, the rankings are just way too subjective anyway.

Reply 70

Ogulalo

Original post by ajohn2222

As an international candidate, I have created and categorized a “general ranking” of top 20 UK universities based on the various rankings and websites.

←better
S Cambridge, Oxford

A Imperial, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Edinburgh

B Durham, Nottingham, St Andrews, Bristol, Bath

C York, KCL, Southampton, Sheffield, Exeter, Manchester, Leeds, Lancaster

Please tell me how you feel about this ranking and category.

Please note that this ranking is based on the following.
The Complete University Guide
The Guardian University Guide
QS Ranking
THE Ranking
A lot of opinions from The Student Room and YouTube

Also in my opinion; Manchester, Leeds, and York should be in B tier instead of Nottingham.

Reply 71

Original post by Ogulalo

Also in my opinion; Manchester, Leeds, and York should be in B tier instead of Nottingham.

His rankings are overall extremely poor, it is not worth trying to patch it up.

Just create a fresh one.

Reply 72

Gbest