The Student Room Group

UCL Natural Sciences vs. Manchester Physics with Astrophysics vs. Edinburgh Physics –

Hi everyone! I’ve received offers for UCL Natural Sciences, Manchester Physics with Astrophysics, and Edinburgh Physics, and I’m struggling to choose. I’d love some advice, especially from those familiar with these courses or pursuing physics research.

I want to work in physics research long-term, ideally theoretical physics (quantum, cosmology, etc.), but I’m still exploring interests. I love pure mathematics and mechanics, but i don’t like statistics. I heard of that astrophysics requires a lot of statistics. I’m unsure if astrophysics (Manchester’s focus) will limit me or if UCL’s flexibility is better for keeping options open.

UCL Natural Sciences Pros/Cons:
- Can study chemistry, earth science, and physics in Year 1. The interdisciplinary approach appeals to me—I like the idea of branching out before specializing.
- Higher university ranking/reputation (QS, etc.), which might matter for academia?
- Less physics-focused upfront. Worried it might lack depth for theoretical physics prep compared to dedicated physics degrees.

Manchester Physics with Astrophysics Pros/Cons:
- Direct physics route with astrophysics specialization. Strong department (Jodrell Bank, cosmology groups).
- Better alignment with research goals? But I’m not 100% sold on astrophysics—what if I prefer particle physics or quantum theory later?
- Less flexibility to explore other sciences.

Edinburgh Physics Pros/Cons:
- Pure physics degree, highly regarded department (ranked well for physics).
- Broad physics foundation, flexibility to specialize later.
- It will take me four years to get my degree and the city is too cold. Also, the accent may be a problem for me since my first language is not English.

Key Questions:
1. For theoretical physics research, does course specificity (e.g., Manchester’s astrophysics) matter more than university ranking?
2. Any insights on Manchester vs. Edinburgh physics departments’ reputations for theory?
3. Am I overthinking rankings vs. course content?

Thanks so much for your help—any advice or personal experiences would be amazing!

P.S. If you’ve attended any of these courses, how did you find the teaching, research opportunities, or support for aspiring academics?

Reply 1

Hi, I believe that, in your case, the content of the course is more important than the university's ranking. UCL's Natural Sciences, Edinburgh's Physics, and Manchester's Physics with Astrophysics are all excellent programs. You can't go wrong with any of them.
Have you attended any offer holder days? These events can provide valuable insights into the course structure and university environment.
UCL is renowned for its research excellence, having produced 32 Nobel laureates. Edinburgh and Manchester are also highly respected institutions with strong physics departments.
I suggest reviewing the course content and considering the atmosphere of each university to determine which aligns best with your interests and goals.
Not really sure what you mean about astrophysics involving a lot of statistics...? I don't think it has particularly more than any other area of physics (and theoretical astrophysics I would expect somewhat less?).

In the UK most physics degrees (whether called "Physics" or "Astrophysics" or "Physics with Astrophysics") cover largely the same core content. Particular "specialisms" just have some optional elements "preselected" for you, although it's usually straightforward to swap to the "main" physics course for these (note this is not necessarily the case for joint or combined honours courses like natural sciences).

If you want to be a physicist realistically you just need to aim to do a physics degree, or perhaps a joint honours physics and maths course. Particularly if aiming for theoretical physics areas you probably just want the ones that give you as many mathematical options as you can take. It's not about the name of the course (i.e. "astrophysics" vs "physics") it's about what you studied on them. If you want to do general relativity and black holes and didn't take any GR options for example then that might be a bit puzzling even if your degree name is "astrophysics".

I would suggest realistically that the UCL course does not align with your long term goals. If you have fleeting interests in earth sciences or chemistry, I'd suggest just reading about those areas while doing a full physics course. The choice between the other two is up to you, as I stated content is likely to be very similar between the two so I'd consider more the differences in the universities and towns themselves.

Note in terms of your complaint about the Edinburgh course taking 4 years - students aiming for a PhD in the UK would usually do an MPhys or BSc + MSc anyway, and in England an MPhys is 4 years.

Reply 3

Original post by Heaven-love
Hi, I believe that, in your case, the content of the course is more important than the university's ranking. UCL's Natural Sciences, Edinburgh's Physics, and Manchester's Physics with Astrophysics are all excellent programs. You can't go wrong with any of them.
Have you attended any offer holder days? These events can provide valuable insights into the course structure and university environment.
UCL is renowned for its research excellence, having produced 32 Nobel laureates. Edinburgh and Manchester are also highly respected institutions with strong physics departments.
I suggest reviewing the course content and considering the atmosphere of each university to determine which aligns best with your interests and goals.

Thank you for your reply! I attended a webinar held by the physics department of the university of Manchester and i feel that the professors are really patient. And i also like the atmosphere of Manchester. So i decided to go to the university of Manchester. Thank you for your advice!

Reply 4

Original post by artful_lounger
Not really sure what you mean about astrophysics involving a lot of statistics...? I don't think it has particularly more than any other area of physics (and theoretical astrophysics I would expect somewhat less?).
In the UK most physics degrees (whether called "Physics" or "Astrophysics" or "Physics with Astrophysics") cover largely the same core content. Particular "specialisms" just have some optional elements "preselected" for you, although it's usually straightforward to swap to the "main" physics course for these (note this is not necessarily the case for joint or combined honours courses like natural sciences).
If you want to be a physicist realistically you just need to aim to do a physics degree, or perhaps a joint honours physics and maths course. Particularly if aiming for theoretical physics areas you probably just want the ones that give you as many mathematical options as you can take. It's not about the name of the course (i.e. "astrophysics" vs "physics") it's about what you studied on them. If you want to do general relativity and black holes and didn't take any GR options for example then that might be a bit puzzling even if your degree name is "astrophysics".
I would suggest realistically that the UCL course does not align with your long term goals. If you have fleeting interests in earth sciences or chemistry, I'd suggest just reading about those areas while doing a full physics course. The choice between the other two is up to you, as I stated content is likely to be very similar between the two so I'd consider more the differences in the universities and towns themselves.
Note in terms of your complaint about the Edinburgh course taking 4 years - students aiming for a PhD in the UK would usually do an MPhys or BSc + MSc anyway, and in England an MPhys is 4 years.

Thank you for your reply! I thought astrophysics involving a lot of statistics because some senior students told me so…… they said astrophysics involves a lot of data and you need to analyse them. So statistics and programming skills are really necessary. Besides, thank you very much for advice on chemistry and earth science. I decided to go to the university of Manchester because i prefer the atmosphere of Manchester. Thank you for your advice:smile:
Original post by OrionZhang
Thank you for your reply! I thought astrophysics involving a lot of statistics because some senior students told me so…… they said astrophysics involves a lot of data and you need to analyse them. So statistics and programming skills are really necessary. Besides, thank you very much for advice on chemistry and earth science. I decided to go to the university of Manchester because i prefer the atmosphere of Manchester. Thank you for your advice:smile:


Data analysis involves maybe not the same kind of statistics you're thinking about I think? When you're talking about very large data sets like that it's not like you're manually calculating stuff, you'll be using statistical packages like R or programming yourself. It's more about understanding how the statistics work than "doing" statistics by hand, I think?

But glad you figured out your choice, best of luck with your studies! :h:

Reply 6

Original post by OrionZhang
Thank you for your reply! I attended a webinar held by the physics department of the university of Manchester and i feel that the professors are really patient. And i also like the atmosphere of Manchester. So i decided to go to the university of Manchester. Thank you for your advice!

I’m so glad you’ve found the right course and made your decision. Wishing you all the best with your studies at Manchester!

Reply 7

Oh I see, so it’s different from high school statistics I guess. Thank you for your reply and also wish you have a nice day!

Reply 8

Original post by Heaven-love
I’m so glad you’ve found the right course and made your decision. Wishing you all the best with your studies at Manchester!

Thank you very much! And also wish you have a nice day!

Quick Reply