Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Avocados for
Since I am a non British it would be really great if one could give me an insight upon the University of Birmingham and that if it is really as respectful and elite as it seems on the internet because I left Warwick due to the lack of good modules and so I am a bit sceptical over it all .
So this is a very subjective question. There are very few universities in the UK that would be considered truly elite in terms being difficult to get into in every subject area that it offers for study both at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. In reality the only two that would fall under that category are Oxford and Cambridge. Following that maybe Imperial and LSE, and maybe UCL.
Beyond that there are some universities which do well in the global rankings, regularly placing inside the top 100 in most league tables: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, UCL, King's Imperial, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol and Glasgow. Then there's some that perform very well in undergraduate rankings but not so much in global rankings: like Durham, Warwick, York, Exeter, St Andrews. What you have to remember is that the global rankings are skewed towards those universities (and mostly in the Anglosphere) that are research-intensive. Thus a smaller university like St Andrews is always going to be unable to compete against these big research-intensive universities.
You then have the Russell Group Universities which since the group's inception, have been thought of amongst the best universities in the country whereas in fact, they're effectively the universities with the biggest research endowments and output. Both Birmingham and Warwick are Russell Group universities. Whilst it's safe to say not all the Russell Groups might be equal in terms of perceived prestige, they are still considered good universities.
So to get to my point, perhaps the best metric to look at is how strong is either university in the subject area you wish to study in terms of teaching quality, and career placement. This is where Birmingham might excel in some areas that Warwick doesn't and vice-versa. People saying "Warwick is considered more prestigious" kind of miss the point. Warwick is very strong in some areas particularly like Maths and Finance-related subjects, and has a strong record of career placements with big firms in Finance and Consulting and in the City of London, and also has a great Graduate Entry Medical School. Beyond that, difficult to say.
In terms of rankings, Birmingham appears to be 84th (QS), 101 (THE), 151-200 (ARU), with QS giving it an Academic Reputation Score of 67.5/100 (national rankings place it amongst the top 15-22).
For Warwick: 67 (QS), 106 (THE), 101-150 (ARU), nationally it ranks about the top 9 to 11, and QS gives it an Academic Reputation Score 71.3/100.
So you could say on averages Warwick might just edge out Birmingham but there's not an awful lot in it. And in the end the rankings doesn't always equate to which is more prestigious or better. It boils down to the following:
•
What do you want to study?
•
Which university delivers the course that is best suited to your needs and method of learning?
•
What is the teaching quality like for your subject at that university?
•
What are career prospects like for graduates in that subject from that university?
•
What does the university have to offer to you beyond your field of study?
•
If you want to go onto further study, which other institutions do graduates from your programme tend to go onto e.g. Oxbridge, Ivy Leagues, big US colleges like Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.
In terms of how the university is viewed by British society and beyond, from a UK perspective, of course Oxbridge are the two that stand out due to their sheer history and impact upon both British and to an extent global history. No other university in the UK can really compare in that sense. But I never based my decisions on what the average person on the street though about my university etc. Those who are in the know will know about the relative prestige or reputation of your university or programme. I mean I am both an Oxbridge and Ivy League graduate. My Ivy League school was the University of Pennsylvania which to those in the know is well regarded. Some outside the US don't readily know this or are even familiar with the term Ivy League. Some don't know any US schools except for Harvard or the MIT. Some don't even know the Wharton School is one of the best business schools in the world. But that didn't really impact on my decision whether or not to study in the US.
So to wind up my very long point: it doesn't really matter what the internet thinks of Birmingham or Warwick. It really is just down to you and what you expect to get out of your degree programme and future aspirations.
All the best.
If I can add on a point about "eltie universities" before someone jumps in and says "the US has more elite universities as it has lots of universities that have lower acceptance rates than Oxford and Cambridge". This is true but you have to remember some key points:
•
In the UK you tend to apply for a degree programme and it's expected you will study that programme for the duration of your time at university. You might apply with the grades to hand or with predicted grades. Given the limit on UCAS choices, students will be careful on where they apply too, a sort of self-selection really, and will only really apply to places where they are most likely to get an offer, and meet the entry requirements.
•
The same applies to Oxbridge as schools will often only encourage their best candidates to apply.
•
This is why acceptance rates may appear higher in the UK than in the US.
•
But in the US given the liberal approach to udnergraduate education where you can take courses across a broad range and not declare until later, you are effectivelly applying "to the university" and not a programme. This means you will get lots of applicants applying to a college based on its perceived reputation or branding. Crucially as long as you can afford to pay the application fee (or receive a waiver), you aren't limited to how many colleges you can apply too, nor is there really a culture in the US of schools only encouraging the very best to apply. With it being a truly open field and thus increased numbers, it's unsurprising the acceptance rate is ridiculously low at a lot of colleges.
An easy way to get an approximation of how prestigious a university is (apart from Oxford and Cambridge which, although high for this, also has some 'positive discrimination' going on) is what percentage of students there came from a private school. Because, if their parents are going to spend money educating them, there is more expectation that they're going to get higher grades on average than even a pretty good state pupil and go to a reasonably selective university. In 2010 (unfortunately the most recent figures I could find on The Guardian's article) 21.8% of the University of Birmingham's pupils were from private schools. This was less than Leeds (26.4%) and Manchester (22.1%) but higher than York (20.4%). And Birmingham was only slightly less than Warwick (23.9%) and Bath (23.7%).
Birmingham ranks higher than Newcastle (30.2%) and Oxford Brookes (28.1%) as a university in general but those universities have a higher percentage of privately educated students. Are they more prestigious than Birmingham? No, they're exceptions to the rule because some posh people just like being in those cities (and Newcastle has an attractive old main building and used to be part of the University of Durham (38.3%) until the 1960s).
It might surprise some people but Nottingham had one of the highest percentages at 32.4%,. It doesn't surprise me as Nottingham was traditionally a top 10-20 university and whilst others have since taken it on, it has a beautiful old main building which is surely appealing to the 'posh'.
And KCL (28.6%) had a higher percentage than Exeter (28%) by the way.
Scottish universities weren't on there but currently 40% of St Andrews students are from private schools.
By this choice of criteria, Birmingham would be about the 17th most prestigious university in the UK (in 2010 anyway), which is pretty good going as we have a lot of universities.
We can look at other factors like research quality and research intensity but, when it comes down to it, where the people who can afford to choose where they go go, that becomes a more prestigious place, at a UK level anyway. Birmingham is currently in a great position between 8th and 11th for research quality though. It's currently 36th to 38th for research intensity which might not sound great but is higher than Warwick which is 43rd or 44th.
nb. I'm using 'private' and 'posh' interchangeably to save time. I don't literally mean that they're necessarily synonomous.
For Law, Birmingham is currently 10th for research quality so even though it's not top 10 for average entry grades achieved by Law students there is a strong reason why it is a good university for Law.
Birmingham ranks higher than Newcastle (30.2%) and Oxford Brookes (28.1%) as a university in general but those universities have a higher percentage of privately educated students. Are they more prestigious than Birmingham? No, they're exceptions to the rule because some posh people just like being in those cities (and Newcastle has an attractive old main building and used to be part of the University of Durham (38.3%) until the 1960s).
It might surprise some people but Nottingham had one of the highest percentages at 32.4%,. It doesn't surprise me as Nottingham was traditionally a top 10-20 university and whilst others have since taken it on, it has a beautiful old main building which is surely appealing to the 'posh'.
And KCL (28.6%) had a higher percentage than Exeter (28%) by the way.
Scottish universities weren't on there but currently 40% of St Andrews students are from private schools.
By this choice of criteria, Birmingham would be about the 17th most prestigious university in the UK (in 2010 anyway), which is pretty good going as we have a lot of universities.
We can look at other factors like research quality and research intensity but, when it comes down to it, where the people who can afford to choose where they go go, that becomes a more prestigious place, at a UK level anyway. Birmingham is currently in a great position between 8th and 11th for research quality though. It's currently 36th to 38th for research intensity which might not sound great but is higher than Warwick which is 43rd or 44th.
nb. I'm using 'private' and 'posh' interchangeably to save time. I don't literally mean that they're necessarily synonomous.
For Law, Birmingham is currently 10th for research quality so even though it's not top 10 for average entry grades achieved by Law students there is a strong reason why it is a good university for Law.
(edited 10 months ago)
Original post by King_George_Weah
If I can add on a point about "eltie universities" before someone jumps in and says "the US has more elite universities as it has lots of universities that have lower acceptance rates than Oxford and Cambridge". This is true but you have to remember some key points:
•
In the UK you tend to apply for a degree programme and it's expected you will study that programme for the duration of your time at university. You might apply with the grades to hand or with predicted grades. Given the limit on UCAS choices, students will be careful on where they apply too, a sort of self-selection really, and will only really apply to places where they are most likely to get an offer, and meet the entry requirements.
•
The same applies to Oxbridge as schools will often only encourage their best candidates to apply.
•
This is why acceptance rates may appear higher in the UK than in the US.
•
But in the US given the liberal approach to udnergraduate education where you can take courses across a broad range and not declare until later, you are effectivelly applying "to the university" and not a programme. This means you will get lots of applicants applying to a college based on its perceived reputation or branding. Crucially as long as you can afford to pay the application fee (or receive a waiver), you aren't limited to how many colleges you can apply too, nor is there really a culture in the US of schools only encouraging the very best to apply. With it being a truly open field and thus increased numbers, it's unsurprising the acceptance rate is ridiculously low at a lot of colleges.
The US has 5 times the population so about 5 times the number of students so it's natural that admission rates to the best American universities will be less. Because even though some UK universities are world famous, most students there are still from the UK.
(edited 10 months ago)
Original post by Picnicl
The US has 5 times the population so about 5 times the number of students so it's natural that admission rates to the best American universities will be less. Because even though some UK universities are world famous, most students there are still from the UK.
I mean yes that goes without saying. But as I pointed out and as you are probably aware the approach to admissions in the US at the undergraduate level is vastly different and a lot of the time, those whose chances of getting into an elite school might be at a stretch, will simply apply anyway so long as they can afford the application fee.
Original post by Picnicl
An easy way to get an approximation of how prestigious a university is (apart from Oxford and Cambridge which, although high for this, also has some 'positive discrimination' going on) is what percentage of students there came from a private school. Because, if their parents are going to spend money educating them, there is more expectation that they're going to get higher grades on average than even a pretty good state pupil and go to a reasonably selective university. In 2010 (unfortunately the most recent figures I could find on The Guardian's article) 21.8% of the University of Birmingham's pupils were from private schools. This was less than Leeds (26.4%) and Manchester (22.1%) but higher than York (20.4%). And Birmingham was only slightly less than Warwick (23.9%) and Bath (23.7%).
Birmingham ranks higher than Newcastle (30.2%) and Oxford Brookes (28.1%) as a university in general but those universities have a higher percentage of privately educated students. Are they more prestigious than Birmingham? No, they're exceptions to the rule because some posh people just like being in those cities (and Newcastle has an attractive old main building and used to be part of the University of Durham (38.3%) until the 1960s).
It might surprise some people but Nottingham had one of the highest percentages at 32.4%,. It doesn't surprise me as Nottingham was traditionally a top 10-20 university and whilst others have since taken it on, it has a beautiful old main building which is surely appealing to the 'posh'.
And KCL (28.6%) had a higher percentage than Exeter (28%) by the way.
Scottish universities weren't on there but currently 40% of St Andrews students are from private schools.
By this choice of criteria, Birmingham would be about the 17th most prestigious university in the UK (in 2010 anyway), which is pretty good going as we have a lot of universities.
We can look at other factors like research quality and research intensity but, when it comes down to it, where the people who can afford to choose where they go go, that becomes a more prestigious place, at a UK level anyway. Birmingham is currently in a great position between 8th and 11th for research quality though. It's currently 36th to 38th for research intensity which might not sound great but is higher than Warwick which is 43rd or 44th.
nb. I'm using 'private' and 'posh' interchangeably to save time. I don't literally mean that they're necessarily synonomous.
For Law, Birmingham is currently 10th for research quality so even though it's not top 10 for average entry grades achieved by Law students there is a strong reason why it is a good university for Law.
Birmingham ranks higher than Newcastle (30.2%) and Oxford Brookes (28.1%) as a university in general but those universities have a higher percentage of privately educated students. Are they more prestigious than Birmingham? No, they're exceptions to the rule because some posh people just like being in those cities (and Newcastle has an attractive old main building and used to be part of the University of Durham (38.3%) until the 1960s).
It might surprise some people but Nottingham had one of the highest percentages at 32.4%,. It doesn't surprise me as Nottingham was traditionally a top 10-20 university and whilst others have since taken it on, it has a beautiful old main building which is surely appealing to the 'posh'.
And KCL (28.6%) had a higher percentage than Exeter (28%) by the way.
Scottish universities weren't on there but currently 40% of St Andrews students are from private schools.
By this choice of criteria, Birmingham would be about the 17th most prestigious university in the UK (in 2010 anyway), which is pretty good going as we have a lot of universities.
We can look at other factors like research quality and research intensity but, when it comes down to it, where the people who can afford to choose where they go go, that becomes a more prestigious place, at a UK level anyway. Birmingham is currently in a great position between 8th and 11th for research quality though. It's currently 36th to 38th for research intensity which might not sound great but is higher than Warwick which is 43rd or 44th.
nb. I'm using 'private' and 'posh' interchangeably to save time. I don't literally mean that they're necessarily synonomous.
For Law, Birmingham is currently 10th for research quality so even though it's not top 10 for average entry grades achieved by Law students there is a strong reason why it is a good university for Law.
Again with the prestige thing, I would say it really does boil down to the subject first and foremost. I mean let's take Medicine and Dentistry for example which are notoriously difficult to get in any where. For a medical applicant an offer of Medicine from say Sunderland Uni would be considered more "prestigious" than doing Biochemistry at King's or Imperial but that's more down to the fact only one of those three degrees allows you to pratice Medicine upon graduation (with full registration a year later) and the other doesn't.
Birmingham is strangely underrated whilst Warwick is strangely overrated.
You’d think that The University of Britain’s Second City would be regarded as a top 10 university (maybe even higher), but apparently not?
The internet seems to be populated with Warwick die-hards. There was a time on TSR about 10 years ago when everyone spoke of Warwick as though it was the next Stanford or something. It was a really weird and obnoxious trend which thankfully seems to have died down.
I’d say their reputations are roughly the same, with Warwick perhaps edging it due to its slightly higher national and global recognition - although it is not inconceivable that Birmingham might overtake Warwick in the future. I’d dare say that Birmingham technically has more going for it, due to its greater history, greater scientific discoveries, greater research funding, higher endowment, higher Nobel Prize count, more notable alumni, etc. I believe Warwick University was originally created with the intention of being a satellite campus for Birmingham University, a bit like how Newcastle was originally part of Durham. Birmingham has also educated 2 British Prime Ministers. But no one cares about any of this, apparently.
Admittedly Birmingham does seem to lag in global rankings compared to where it should be. This is just one factor, but its rankings are a little bit underwhelming compared to Warwick/Bristol/Manchester etc. The difference is negligible and to some extent meaningless, but sometimes this can affect perceptions of prestige.
Birmingham also has the “eww, ex-industrial Northern city” factor, which might matter to a certain kind of ill-informed high achiever. This has nothing to do with the actual quality of the university, of course, and anyone who seriously thinks like this is, ironically, a moron, but sometimes this can become weirdly self-fulfilling in that fewer such people target such places, leading to lower entry tariffs, lower entry requirements, lower rankings and thus poorer perceptions of prestige. Although, this doesn’t really give you the full picture, since Birmingham’s offer rates are actually quite low compared to similar RG unis. In fact, their offer rates are even lower than Warwick’s, and given that Birmingham receives more applicants and therefore rejects a greater number of candidates, this is not insignificant.
You’d think that The University of Britain’s Second City would be regarded as a top 10 university (maybe even higher), but apparently not?
The internet seems to be populated with Warwick die-hards. There was a time on TSR about 10 years ago when everyone spoke of Warwick as though it was the next Stanford or something. It was a really weird and obnoxious trend which thankfully seems to have died down.
I’d say their reputations are roughly the same, with Warwick perhaps edging it due to its slightly higher national and global recognition - although it is not inconceivable that Birmingham might overtake Warwick in the future. I’d dare say that Birmingham technically has more going for it, due to its greater history, greater scientific discoveries, greater research funding, higher endowment, higher Nobel Prize count, more notable alumni, etc. I believe Warwick University was originally created with the intention of being a satellite campus for Birmingham University, a bit like how Newcastle was originally part of Durham. Birmingham has also educated 2 British Prime Ministers. But no one cares about any of this, apparently.
Admittedly Birmingham does seem to lag in global rankings compared to where it should be. This is just one factor, but its rankings are a little bit underwhelming compared to Warwick/Bristol/Manchester etc. The difference is negligible and to some extent meaningless, but sometimes this can affect perceptions of prestige.
Birmingham also has the “eww, ex-industrial Northern city” factor, which might matter to a certain kind of ill-informed high achiever. This has nothing to do with the actual quality of the university, of course, and anyone who seriously thinks like this is, ironically, a moron, but sometimes this can become weirdly self-fulfilling in that fewer such people target such places, leading to lower entry tariffs, lower entry requirements, lower rankings and thus poorer perceptions of prestige. Although, this doesn’t really give you the full picture, since Birmingham’s offer rates are actually quite low compared to similar RG unis. In fact, their offer rates are even lower than Warwick’s, and given that Birmingham receives more applicants and therefore rejects a greater number of candidates, this is not insignificant.
(edited 8 months ago)
Warwick's research intensity is low for a supposed major university. So if the overt political correctness and bland motorway service station aesthetics, and relative lack of history due to only dating from the 1960s, of the place didn't put me off, the fact that it's just generally overrated by students (who don't know that it's no research powerhouse) would.
(edited 8 months ago)
read that Birmingham currently is the most targeted university by employers for graduate recruitment
the sports opportunities are underrated, too, as all the attention is directed at Loughborough and Bath
it is England’s second city and the campus is in a very green and attractive part of the city
‘prestigious’ tends to be a synonym for how many wealthy students attend a university and does not denote academic credentials, necessarily
the sports opportunities are underrated, too, as all the attention is directed at Loughborough and Bath
it is England’s second city and the campus is in a very green and attractive part of the city
‘prestigious’ tends to be a synonym for how many wealthy students attend a university and does not denote academic credentials, necessarily
Original post by medmama
read that Birmingham currently is the most targeted university by employers for graduate recruitment
the sports opportunities are underrated, too, as all the attention is directed at Loughborough and Bath
it is England’s second city and the campus is in a very green and attractive part of the city
‘prestigious’ tends to be a synonym for how many wealthy students attend a university and does not denote academic credentials, necessarily
the sports opportunities are underrated, too, as all the attention is directed at Loughborough and Bath
it is England’s second city and the campus is in a very green and attractive part of the city
‘prestigious’ tends to be a synonym for how many wealthy students attend a university and does not denote academic credentials, necessarily
Agreed. Birmingham can get a bad rep for crime but it's leafy suburbs and it's grammar schools are prestigious. Birmingham is sometimes regarded as the definitive 'redbrick' due to the literal colour of its stone. Having a canal is an attractive feature too.
(edited 8 months ago)
Original post by Picnicl
Agreed. Birmingham can get a bad rep for crime but it's leafy suburbs and it's grammar schools are prestigious. Birmingham is sometimes regarded as the definitive 'redbrick' due to the literal colour of its stone. Having a canal is an attractive feature too.
moreover, Birmingham had 19 top ten subjects compared to Warwick’s 17
( Leeds has 26 Exeter 21 Manchester 23 just to give a comparison)
better not to look at headline overall rankings but to drill down [source CUG ‘25]
Warwick is a target for investment banking, whereas Birmingham is not. Warwick also has really strong maths and economics departments, but other than that, I would say that they are very much on par in terms of reputation/prestige. They are very different in terms of location, campus, aesthetics, student social life etc, but you can’t objectively say that one is better than the other as it depends on personal preferences.
Original post by King_George_Weah
Again with the prestige thing, I would say it really does boil down to the subject first and foremost. I mean let's take Medicine and Dentistry for example which are notoriously difficult to get in any where. For a medical applicant an offer of Medicine from say Sunderland Uni would be considered more "prestigious" than doing Biochemistry at King's or Imperial but that's more down to the fact only one of those three degrees allows you to pratice Medicine upon graduation (with full registration a year later) and the other doesn't.
yes, very true
and worth noting that these courses cost the university much more to deliver
both in terms of teaching or contact time and in terms of clinical placements
( the actual cost is a multiple of the home tuition fees charged)
Original post by MedMama
well said
( moreover, think some posters above should also look at the world
QS rankings for 2024
Durham, St. Andrews and Exeter are not necessarily quite so outstanding in global terms
- unlike Manchester which ranks at 32!)
( moreover, think some posters above should also look at the world
QS rankings for 2024
Durham, St. Andrews and Exeter are not necessarily quite so outstanding in global terms
- unlike Manchester which ranks at 32!)
"Well said"?? In only your opinion that is. What you are forgetting is that to get a full balanced view of rankings, both domestic and international should be taken into account. So while some QS have dropped slightly, the latter unis you mentioned are still high fliers in the domestic ranks which are as important as international (some may argue even more so as pertains to entry standards and teaching quality)
Kings, Edinburgh and Manchester are higher in the QS but do poorly in UK (at least Kings and Manchester) which shows they cannot be considered fully rounded in terms of prestige. Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL fair enough they do well in both, but ones doing well in one league but not another could probably cancel each other out. Same situation goes in US with colleges like Williams, Dartmouth and Georgetown. They are not currently high in the QS at all, but in domestic ranks do very well - particularly Williams where student will pick over Ivy league as is considered super elite despite not being prominent in the world ranks.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Masters at Durham or Birmingham
- Masters at Durham or Birmingham?
- How opportunistic is Durham University?
- University of Birmingham Accounting and finance- my chances for Big 4
- Warwick or University of Birmingham for LAW???
- Applying to Imperial with A*A*A*A
- City University of London
- Nottingham law prestige?
- Museum Studies Masters Programs - which is better?
- how do I get over my university regret and obsessions with rankings?
- How is Loughborough a top 10 uni?
- Rank these for me please
- Why KCL is so overrated?
- Good uni for law?
- Uni of Aberdeen
- University of Birmingham or University of Manchester for Mechanical Engineering?
- UCL reputation in uk
- Which University for economics
- Northumbria or Newcastle University for Computer Science
- Where to study law: Lancaster Uni vs Uni of Birmingham vs Newcastle Uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
It has been two years since I graduated and I don't know what to doLast reply 4 months ago
nottingham, manchester, durham, warwick or exeter for lawLast reply 5 months ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.Last reply 6 months ago
UCAS confirms personal statements to be abolished from Sep 2025
