UCL or Bristol, my 'dilemma', BE WARNED, I babble...

Hey! I wonder if anyone is able to help, or shed any light on a situation I am in. I have offers from both UCL and Bristol, both for Archaeology (V/F400). I have visited both uni's. I went to UCL in January. It was the first time I had been there, and this was for my interview. I wasn't too keen on the university when I went there. I don’t know if this was because I was nervous about my interview, the fact is was overcast or what.... But the 'guides' that gave us the tour didn't seem to know a lot the university unless it was in the archaeology dept.....kind of put me off, as I NEED to mix with ppl doing other subjects (no offence to other Archaeologists lol). Also there was a lot of building work in the dept. as they were building the Anthropology dept. on top on the Arch. Institute, but apparently didn't know archaeology was there or something....very strange. Although, this building is due to be finished by October. All of the people at the department were really nice and friendly however, and there was an informal, open-door ethos between students and lecturers.

Anyways, I have been to Bristol twice now, and LOVED it both times. The department is really nice, not too big (UCL's was HUGE). One of the 'problems' with Bristol is that is isn't as known for Archaeology as UCL. At the moment, the Dept. is expanding rapidly due to a lot of money available to Bristol at the moment (£400,000,000 apparently). So it's on its way up. They r also opening 3 new Archaeology degree's there too, and building new labs, to be completed by October, appointing a new Head of Dept. and getting another professor. But one thing that does bother me is the amount of emphasis on prestige ppl seem to have about Uni's and especially for a fairly unusual degree like mine, UCL is probably more highly regarded (at the moment), than Bristol. People who have read my posts will know my idea's about prestige. But with the apparent rise of the G5 (within the Russell Group) group of unis (comprising of Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial and LSE), it makes me think I SHOULD take UCL just because of its name...

The courses at both unis r amazing, so that's no problem. Does anyone think I should go and visit UCL again, with fresh viewpoint...? Also, there is the other annoyance of living in London, it’s so expensive...and UCL is meant to be fairly lonely. I have heard this from a fair few people I know, whereas I have heard nothing but positive comments about Bristol (and there have been quite a few). The graduate employment rate (done by The Times) for Archaeology is 65 for UCL as opposed to 55 at Bristol.

Anyways, sorry to babble, I could have probably condensed that into a tiny portion of what I typed.... But I wondered what ppls opinions of the value of prestige, the G5 group of Uni's, graduate employability, and anything else that comes to mind. I just don't want to think "what if" (I went to UCL, or vice versa) in a few years time...

ANY help, advice, or info would be much appreciated, that’s if you haven’t fallen asleep already lol!

THANX :biggrin:

Reply 1

rottcodd

Well it seems as if overall you're not a massive fan of UCL - but then I felt exactly the same way about UEA and it was a really rainy day, I was stressed about exams and was generally peed off. I would recommend visiting it one more time - you're going to spend the next three years of your life there so it's worth checking it out.

You mentioned that UCL is better in terms of reputation for Archeology specifically. Overall, both uni's have a really good rep, so it depends if you're likely to go into reserach in archeology after your degree. If you do, then UCL could be better if it's more well known for that (I dont actually know, I'm just going on what you said!). But to be honest, both have a good rep so if you wanted to do reseach, either decision wouldn't do you any harm.

So in my opinon, Bristol looks like a good option for you as you seem to prefer it! But check out UCL one more time just to make sure...

Reply 2

~Sam~

It's obvious that you really want to go to Bristol so go there! The difference in reputation really isnt that big

Reply 3

d750

Bristol might be better known for Archaeology than UCL, for people who don't know that much about archaeology at least (like me). Bristol certainly seems to have a better regarded classics department, so I would have guessed it had a better archaeology department. If you're not planning on going on with archaeology after your degree, you might want to take into account such uninformed opinions. :wink:

Reply 4

hallucination

I'm pretty much with everyone else here - it sounds as though Bristol is the one you should go for. Saying that though, it would definitely be a good idea to go and visit UCL again, just to make sure you're making the right choice.

Reply 5

twilight

i'm having the same problem as you. I narrowed my choices to bristol and ucl for economics.

I went to ucl and although i quite liked it i felt it didnt really have a "studenty" environment. As its located in central london, the pace of life seemed so much faster and more stressful. I also felt the openday of the environment wasnt well organised.

I went to bristol day before yesterday, and i absolutely loved it. It was a really nice city, and although the university wasnt campus based, the departments were very clustered, so you could actually pick out the students in the crowd. The city seemed so interesting and all the students that i met seemed really friendly.

I think its really important that you enjoy the university that you decide to go to, because if u dont enjoy it, you'll find the work etc so much more of a chore. For this reason ive decided i want to go to bristol, and as soon as i talk it over with my parents. i'll tell ucas.