<p>Also naming your university would help put things into perspective lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont know how that is relevant really. Could you elaborate why though?</p>
<p>Moreover I rarely pom pom wave fyi neither do I make threads such as is A university well knows in country B.</p>
<p>I am too mature for that lol</p>
<p>i deleted a post i made before that as i thought the thread was turning to flame war, indeed immature. i don’t know why i started this anyway, almost like i’m seeking approval, you don’t get better universities than cambridge or imperial and reputation in a separate country means nothing</p>
<p>oh right, i was wondering if my relative in usa thought imperial was a good school hmm, sad times.</p>
<p>asdfkjasdf asdf asd kjasdf need to stop procrastinating</p>
<p>“Edinburgh is like St. Andrews, and have four year courses unlike the typical UK university. Nothing special, but still quite good. Filled with mediocre posh private school students if that’s your clique .”</p>
<p>@sexytimeishere, that’s what I’ve heard. I also heard that Edinburgh’s location is better/there is more to do outside the university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>based on rank and international reputation.</p>
<p>edinburgh is a metropolitan whereas st. andrews is an ‘university town’, it’s much smaller.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that the school is named the Imperial College of ** Science, Technology and Medicine ** and offers undergraduate degrees in those 3 aforementioned areas only, it is hardly surprising that it should be unknown outside those domains.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s only one ranking where Imperial outranked UC Berkeley and the ranking was done by a British company, QS. It’s globally recognized as a very flawed ranking so it did not earn the respect of the academic people, employers and students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is ** no **. You learn more about EE specifically in a 4-year MEng course from Imperial than in a 4-year BS from MIT. The reasons are twofold. First, Imperial’s courses are subject-specific: you study EE only for 4 years, unlike at MIT, where you have general institute requirements, humanities & social sciences requirements, and free electives, in addition to major-specific classes (just slightly over 10 or so). Second, Imperial’s course educates you up to a master’s level in 4 years, whereas, at MIT, you would need 5 years to get an integrated BS/MENg and, probably, when you were done, you would still have fewer EE-specific classes in the aggregate than an Imperial student. </p>
<p>All of the above however ** does not ** imply that Imperial is a better EE school than MIT. It is just a matter of different approaches to engineering education. At MIT, you don’t get the same level of specialization as at Imperial in the same amount of time, but you get other relevant skills such as analytic thinking, problem solving, and a solid overall scientific background that may prove more useful for a future PhD candidate than lots of EE classes. Besides, undergraduate student satisfaction at Imperial (and BTW at LSE also) is rather low, even for UK standards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is correct. But that is also dependent on the preparation made by the students. Oftentimes, when the students are crossing majors, say, from political science to economics, the students would have a hard time in econometrics and micro-economics. When you encounter students like that, you cannot really tell they are average students. They’re smart. They just didn’t have the right preparatory courses during their undergrad years, and they’re made to study a different field. Many Americans struggle at Cambridge – I’ve seen that a million times. They’re not exactly average IQ Americans, but amongst the very best ones, yet they still struggle in class. They eventually catch up, but just the same, struggling with classes at a new environment is not uncommon for many bright students. They happen all the time from Harvard and Berkeley in the USA to Cambridge and LSE in the UK.</p>