Rating top UK universities vs top US universities

College Search & Selection
281

<p>I can see how UCL could make the top 20, but that would be highly debatable. However, there is no way it cracks the top 10. Below are 11 universities in the English-speaking world that are clearly better. </p>

<p>Berkeley
Caltech
Cambridge
Chicago
Columbia
Harvard
MIT
Oxford
Princeton
Stanford
Yale</p>

<p>Beyond those 11, you have 20 or so universities that are excellent and Imperal, LSE and UCL are ceraintly among them. Below are a few I can think of that are at least as good as UCL:</p>

<p>Brown University
Cornell University
Duke
Imperial
Johns Hopkins
LSE
McGill
Michigan
Northwestern
Penn
Toronto
UCLA
UNC
UT-Austin
Wisconsin-Madison</p>

<p>So making the top 20 is certainly plausible, but it is also debatable.</p>

282

<p>According to the ARWU rankings, UCL is the 21th best university worldwide, and I tend to believe this. (I know, of course, that the ARWU measures scientific performance, therefore there are many differences between it’s ranking and the USNews, for example.)</p>

<p>But placing UCL as the 4th best
 I was proud when Cambridge topped Harvard at the QS rankings, although I would never say it’s a better university (in certain areas it is surely better, but that not as a whole), but UCL as 4th best is not simply about raising eyebrows, but it’s a joke, frankly. It’s a fine world-class institution, but I would never think it’s in the World Top 20. When France tried to create world rankings, French universities were ranked incredibly high on such rankings, and it was a joke that the French universities perform well on French rankings. It seems, however, that British rankings tend to do the same
</p>

283

<p>Why is it debatable? I’m no supporter of university ranking websites; personally I believe most have become US-centric by default, for fear of being ignored if they were otherwise. But the fact remains that most place UCL in or very near the top 20, so there must be some truth in it.</p>

<p>I don’t want to get dragged into yet another pointless debate on reputation, but it seems to me that too many people on this board are disposed to the untenable view that the best universities in America are automatically the best in the world. I am sceptical to put it mildly on the validity of claims that suggest places like Chicago, Duke or Brown are better or equal to one of the best universities in Europe.</p>

284

<p>I swore myself I was going to ignore these kind of debates but something kind of struck me:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you readY to compare the contributions of undergrads at Chicago, Duke or Brown to world class research to that of UCL? Also just because UCL is the best in europe means nothing. I dont think you know how good Chicago is, its as good as Oxford as an overall institution. You are intrinsically claiming the superiority of Europe over other continents which you have hinted several times and which I have glossed over because I also think its kind of ignorant. </p>

<p>People are not US-centric because they think US schools are better. Its just a fact: US schools are better. To produce top level research. They produce better and more innovative undergrads. I can at least pinpoint 20-40 US schools which are as good as or way better than UCL at the undergraduate level. There is a reason why Swarthmore, Haverford have produced more notable scientists than UCL at the undergraduate level by pure numbers alone regardless of per capita basis. And Famous writers too and business men.</p>

<p>Its called a good education and a commitment to teaching.</p>

<p>See its one thing to have an opinion, its another to have concerete arguments to back up that opinion</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have to say this does not add up. Two of the rankings (QS and THES) are very very Britocentric and everyone acknowledges it even British Academics. There methodology and who they use to compute there data is quite nebulous. I doubt the veracity of their rankings myself especially when they claim Manchester, Bristol and KCL have better job prospects than Caltech and Dartmouth. Moreover Americans dont look at world rankings too much anyways and to be honest from what I have seen dont care too much even if Harvard is ranked 90th. Infact most of them dont look at US News. The people on college confidential are kind of weird and a small sample of students. I would know I am kind of weird too :slight_smile: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually its the same in UK student forums where they think the decent british schools with average reputations in the UK are at par with elite US schools just because they have never heard of Williams. Ignorance is usually a two way street. The US is a very large country also and in no way or form is the UK actually superior to the US neither are the students. If you assume that student quality is at par in all countries (and that Europe does not have smarter people than Asia or America or the Middle East as you are insinuating) then it would make sense why a top ten-twenty US school should be way better than UCL and this becomes more reflective if one examines how well the students have used their education to change the world.</p>

<p>Personally I think Asian Universities are underrated especially those smart fellows in Japan- University of Tokyo and Kyoto et al and then ETH Zurich. But its an opinion.</p>

285

<p>Dionysus, American universities are the best in the World, and that’s coming from a non-American. I am a French citizen of Arab decent. I followed the British system of education through high school and completed my A Level before choosing to attend an American university over any British university that admitted me, including LSE and UCL. </p>

<p>The reason why US universities are the best is quite simple. They have better and larger faculties because they have the money to pay them better and fund their research. They also have better facilities and more plentiful resources thanks to their far greater wealth. Only Cambridge and Oxford have the resources to compete with the US’ top 10 universities. </p>

<p>It is difficult to compare French or German universities to British, Canadian or US universities. The former tend to be very narrow in focus, offering only a handful of fields of study while the latter are significantly broader, offer dozens of concentrations. For example, ecole Polytechnique in France offers only Engineering and Physics. It is arguably #1 in Europe in those fields and certainly on par with Imperial and Munich, but it cannot compete with Imperial because Imperial also offers programs in Biology, Business, Chemistry and Medicine. </p>

<p>This said, I personally do not believe that schools like Brown, Cornell, Duke etc
 are better than UCL, but they are certainly as good. The Times ranks UCL #22, ARWU ranks it #21 and Newsweek ranks it #25. Obviously, UCL is a top university. But #4 is excessive. The top 10 or so are pretty clear and include schools such as Cal, Caltech, Chicago and Columbia, all of which are a notch above UCL.</p>

286

<p>First time ever, but I absolutely agree with sefago. (With one minor correction: nobody claimed that UCL is the best in Europe.)</p>

<p>Alexander is also right: money is a really important thing, as you can not do research without it (even in humanities, you cannot build a massive library without proper financial sources), and with the exception of Oxbridge, no European university have much money. Cambridge’s endowment is currently £4 billion, Oxford have £3 billion, but after these two institutions, there is a huuuuuuuuuge gap. Money is not everything, of course, there are many US universities with some serious endowment, that not performing well on the ARWU rankings, like Emory or Notre Dame. Still, without proper financial support, there’s no way to do world-class research, and European universities simply don’t have any money, with the exception of Oxbridge. UCL, KCL have some money, but only if compared with other UK or European institutions, as their endowment is just pocket money compared to the US institution’s endowment. </p>

<p>Also, the fact is, that continental Europe lacks of elite research universities. I know the system in France, but those universities only elite, and bears prestige within the country, and not outside of France. It was interesting that the president of U Munich said in the THES Reputation Rankings, published only two weeks ago, that there are many good universities in Germany, but the policy was, until the 80’s, that there must be many good universities that provide quality education, but without any “flagship” institutions.</p>

287

<p>

</p>

<p>No I’m not. European universities should be acknowledged on CC for what they are, perfectly respectable and eminent institutions of learning. Instead they’re all too often completely ignored or else criticized and denigrated by people such as yourself and especially IvyPBear.</p>

<p>I’ll tell you what is becoming intrinsic on CC, Americans casual disregard and dismissive attitude towards anything foreign. A good example would be the liberal arts versus British style of education debate, in which most people asserted that the latter was inferior because it was not practised in the US. This is something entirely subjective you understand, yet individuals like you still felt able to say that their way was better. The same thing is going on here (though I appreciate not everyone in this thread is American).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How do you know? I’d be amazed if these assertions were based on anything other than speculation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Money is important, it would be foolish to think otherwise but you’re exaggerating the effect large endowments have. Great facilities are of course beneficial and heck who wouldn’t want a gym in every college dorm - but do they contribute significantly to the quality of research and teaching at a university? No.</p>

<p>Wealth isn’t an indicator for quality of life, which is why most European counties do better than the US on that score. Why then is it considered to be an indictor for university quality on this board? Huge piles of cash are not a prerequisite for world-class research and teaching.</p>

<p>British universities’ relative poverty should be something we celebrate, not berate them for. The fact that so many have achieved what they have with their limited funds is something I take much pride in. It certainly should not be a reason why they’re considered inferior to their US counterparts.</p>

288

<p>“
completely ignored or else criticized and denigrated by people such as yourself and especially IvyPBear.”</p>

<p>Don’t label my reasoned disagreement as denigration.</p>

<p>I have studied at one of the top 5 universities in continental Europe, which proclaimed itself as a world leader in higher education. It was no where near great. Class were huge. Getting perfect scores (with very little studying) on the midterms and the finals was easy even though the median grades for the classes weren’t high, and there seemed to be a lack of innovative thinking in the classroom. They are just not on par with American and British schools. When students intern, they intern at places like LV, A&F, Gap, restaurants, etc. Only the top ones get to intern in consulting, finance, research, etc.</p>

<p>While attending UWC, UCL, along with top continental European and Asian universities, was regarded as very much second tier to the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Duke, Williams, Amherst, and Oxbridge.</p>

<p>Top 20 American universities (Ivies, UCB, UMich, UNC, UCLA, etc.) are the best along with Oxbridge, followed by a couple in Japan, couple in continental Europe, and a couple in Asia.</p>

<p>ARWU is the least subjective ranking with regards to this issue since it’s not published by an American or an European organization.
[ARWU</a> 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp)</p>

289

<p>

</p>

<p>FYI, I dont denigrate universities, actually you do
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/international-students/1076434-jacobs-university-bremen-decisions-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/international-students/1076434-jacobs-university-bremen-decisions-3.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Ouch to those who go undergrad degrees from IUB and read your comments.</p>

<p>I leave you with these figures to ponder over.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Swarthmore
Major Financial Companies started by undergrads in the US</p>

<p>KKR (Kohlberg)
T Rowe Price</p>

<p>Nobel Laureates won by Undergrads
5 Nobels (Sciences)</p>

<p>UCL</p>

<p>Founders of Major Financial Companies in the City of London and worldwide</p>

<p>0</p>

<p>Nobel Laureates won by people who did their undegrad (not graduate students)
1-2 (Mostly like 50-60 years ago lol)</p>

<p>Number of Students at UCL: 12,000
Number of students at Swarthmore: 1525</p>

290

<p>“Money is important, it would be foolish to think otherwise but you’re exaggerating the effect large endowments have. Great facilities are of course beneficial and heck who wouldn’t want a gym in every college dorm - but do they contribute significantly to the quality of research and teaching at a university? No.”</p>

<p>Who is talking about gyms? I am referring to labs, classrooms, career offices, manageable class size, research spending etc
 </p>

<p>“Wealth isn’t an indicator for quality of life, which is why most European counties do better than the US on that score. Why then is it considered to be an indictor for university quality on this board? Huge piles of cash are not a prerequisite for world-class research and teaching.”</p>

<p>Europeans are almost as wealthy as Americans. In fact, with the exception of Southern Europe, Europeans are as wealthy as Americans. Just because Europeans do not spend as much does not mean they do not earn as much. Do not confuse GDP with productivity. Europeans choose to relax more, work less, enjoy the simpler things in life and save more. I love that about Europe and would live there over the US any day. But that proves how neutral I am when it comes to this issue. When it comes to universities, European universities are far poorer than American universities. They do not generate nearly as much money from tuition, they do not receive nearly as much in alumni donations and their endowments are far smaller.</p>

291

<p>^ Actually I have a different opinion on this. I dont think European schools are affected by the lack of endowments. I also dont think US schools are given significant advantage based on their endowment either. Thats is a false notion IMO. Most of these endowments dont really give the full picture. Most of the research funding comes from external organizations with a smaller percentage coming from the departmental fund, which is derived of course from the school total funding.</p>

<p>I think in Europe, European schools compete with each other and since all of them are structured the same they would be competing for the same amount of funds on equal grounds and would be allotted funds by the givernment based on their reputation in research and historical output.</p>

<p>In the US for example, if you dont research or teach at a top 20 school, well that sucks because it would be difficult to win funding. And if you are in the humanities then you would largely have to depend largely on departmental funding (thats why it takes humanities PhDs like 6-7 years to finish a PhD because of the TA commitment).</p>

<p>It basically depends on how much teh government allocates towards research funds. So in terms of research it makes sense why a lot of European Universities for example would be able to produce world class research while schools like Brown and Dartmouth would be struggling for recognition in such a competitive environment. I think in Europe its a priority to make their universities world class in research even if it is detrimental to teaching. In the US, there is quite a mixture- attempts to be boh good undergraduate institutions and research universities.</p>

<p>Its actually interesting IMO, how certain governments decide to allocate fundings towards various parts of the educational sector and why they do. I think its really common sense to allocate more funding to research if you would want to remain a developed country and G-7 (is that what its called?) and remain competiive in the global economy</p>

292

<p>it’s almost impossible to compare universities so different from each other
 simply because they have different philosophies about education and thus the criteria and just the criteria are always gonna so which one is the best
or which ones match with each other</p>

293

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see any reasoning in your disagreement; just blind prejudice towards anything non-HYPSM.</p>

<p>I’d be interested to know what school you’re referring to, and in what manner you studied there. A lot of people return from stints studying abroad with similar complaints; including British students returning from ivies. A lot of Americans I’ve spoken to who did not enjoy their time abroad were only allowed to take foundation classes at their host university, or didn’t attend a university at all but an American organised programme. Whatever your experience, I think you’d be ill-advised to judge a university on ones experiences as an exchange student.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t usually make it a habit to criticise foreign universities, but for JUB I made an exception. I wouldn’t even call it a university.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is that it? I confess I was expecting better. Those stats are terrible (not to mention poorly researched), they don’t support your post at all. Added to that they’re frightfully disingenuous.</p>

<p>The measure of a notable scientist is whether or not they’ve been awarded a Nobel Prize? Claire Patterson wouldn’t agree. I have no idea how many Nobel Laureates attended UCL as an undergrad, but according to Wikipedia UCL actually has 21 Nobel Laureates among its former students and academics (why are you discounting PhD students and research staff?).</p>

<p>I think you should do some research before attacking UCL’s alumni, which has produced scores of important businessman and financers (the founder of PwC for one), and literally dozens and dozens of literati (have you heard of Robert Browning?)!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is there really a noticeable difference between British and American labs, classrooms, career offices or even research spending? I doubt it. A lot, maybe even the majority of US schools’ cash is spent on pointless things like gyms.</p>

294

<p>“Europeans choose to relax more, work less, enjoy the simpler things in life and save more.”</p>

<p>When I was in Europe, my European friends (at a top university) constantly complained about not being able to get high paying jobs, not being able to make much, etc. It seemed like everyone over there wanted to drive nice cars & get nice houses by ponds, but most (even at that top school) didn’t view that as realistic. There are a lot fewer employment opportunities over there, but I think European students tolerate uncertainty regarding employment much better than American students. From my travels (I did a lot during my exchange since school required very little time), the only major European countries close to the US (with regards to wealth and standards of living) are Germany, the UK, and France.</p>

<p>“A lot of people return from stints studying abroad with similar complaints; including British students returning from ivies.”</p>

<p>I’ve heard of British students complain about American schools as well, but all of their complaints are related to how the grading was tough and how the grading sucked. My study abroad was a great experience, and I was happy that the standards were so low and the grading was so easy. I had never taken a finance class in the US. I took a finance course for 3rd year (final year) finance majors, and got a perfect score just by cramming for the midterm and the final.</p>

<p>“I don’t see any reasoning in your disagreement; just blind prejudice towards anything non-HYPSM.”</p>

<p>I sense inferiority complex. I believe that most of the Ivies, three elite LACs, and many public flagships to be superior to UCL and non-Oxbridge universities. I stand by my view, let’s refer to an unbiased source: <a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp[/url]”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

295

<p>" Great facilities are of course beneficial and heck who wouldn’t want a gym in every college dorm - but do they contribute significantly to the quality of research and teaching at a university"</p>

<p>I don’t know that you are really that naive, or just pretend it. Either way, you can’t be serious, that large endowment are just about having an other gym. I hope you’re just joking. Because if you are not, that this is one of the must stupid thing I’ve ever heard. It is not possible to establish even a mediocre research team without high-tech stuff, and the nasty thing is, that high-tech stuff cost a lot, millions, or tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the other things needed: what do you think, for instance, why biologists in many relatively poor(er) countries experimenting on fruitfly, instead of using hundreds of special mice, and changing the mice population every week? Probably because it cost a lot. Science is not all about money, but you simply cannot do world class research without money, because you will not have the necessary equipment. The same goes to teaching in sciences, whilst in humanities, you will need tons of books, for a start. And you need a good teacher-student ratio, which also need money, as you have to employ more teachers. And so on, there are thousands of examples while money is damn important. There is no way of not knowing this
</p>

<p>About the salaries: there are some European countries where the GDP per capta is much higher than it is in the States, but the taxes are much higher too, and most things cost more.
Also, there are only a handful of private universities in Europe (even Oxbridge are public, although not in the US or common European sense, they are much closer to private US institutions), and state related institutions barely have much money - it is even true in the States, as the endowment of the flagships is usually around $1-1.5 billion, with the exception of UMich, which is a kind of special case. But even this is far higher than any European university’s endowment, with the exception of Oxbridge.</p>

<p>I don’t think that it is just a coincidence that EU researchers are the ones who go to the US, and not American researchers come here. Better working environment, better salaries
 Ohh, you need to offer people enough money of course, otherwise many of them will leave. The European, even the UK salariy (with the possible exception of Oxbridge, although it’s still lower what their US counterparts offer) for professors is a kind of joke. A bad one, indeed
</p>

<p>PS: Yes, there is an incredible difference between most US and EU labs
(not all, of course, but most). With some exaggeration and a touch of anachronism one might think that Dionysus58 think that dealing with science is just about thinking hard
</p>

296

<p>“Is there really a noticeable difference between British and American labs, classrooms, career offices or even research spending? I doubt it. A lot, maybe even the majority of US schools’ cash is spent on pointless things like gyms.”</p>

<p>The continental European university I attended had projection monitors in the classroom (granted, not all were projection monitors). I haven’t seen those since 2002. Even the community college near my hometown in the US has LCD screens. I wouldn’t say gyms are pointless, but they apparently save the best for the exchange students. The only gym on campus (and the only cafeteria on campus) was located on the first floor of my dorm, which was the only dorm on campus. Also, many continental European universities don’t even have many dorms. Exchange students such as myself got to take classes in the step classrooms on the first floor of our dorm, while native students had to commute 40 minutes to get there. I’ve thought top schools in every country was suppose to incubate future leaders, but seeing those student scrambling from their scooters to the classroom just makes you wonder how those students are going to transform into leaders and innovators.</p>

<p>“About the salaries: there are some European countries where the GDP per capta is much higher than it is in the states.”</p>

<p>Mostly smaller ones like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Ireland (back in the days), and a few other ones piggy-back riding on the big 3.</p>

297

<p>

</p>

<p>Goodness how wrong you are. Most Europeans enjoy a much higher standard of living than Americans, fact. Indeed Germany, the UK and France aren’t even the top runners in Europe; the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Finland are all I think way ahead.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Funny, I’ve heard the exact opposite. Quite a number of people I’ve spoken to have complained about the easy and constant multiple choice questions in exams. This from a girl studying at Harvard remember. That’s not to say Harvard is bad, just different - a concept you’ve clearly failed to appreciate whilst abroad.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is exactly what I mean, does it really matter that you used projection monitors instead of LCD screens? Is it really going to impact on your education? No of course not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You have just proven my point, thank you. Just because something is done differently in Europe does not make it inferior to the US. University here is about growing individually as a person and becoming more independent (both academically and physically), how can you do that if you’re handed all your meals on a plate and cooped up in a campus dorm with a roommate? At UCL after your first year nearly everyone moves into private accommodation somewhere in London and commutes to class - this is normal and does not reflect upon the university, it’s just how it is.</p>

298

<p>Cambridge has recently been ranked 1st in the world rankings
I don’t think you’ll have any trouble in the U.S. if you go there. That is the same for LSE, Imperial, UCL and Oxford (which was just behind Harvard and Yale on the rankings.) It would be universities like Manchester and Exeter which Americans would be less likely to know. I think you’ve got the rankings completely right. However UCL would probably be close to tier 1- it is a fantastic school.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010[/url]”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

299

<p>

</p>

<p>Ranking universities is all fun and games, but seriously, you must be a ■■■■■. Or you only visited Germany, the UK and France, and not Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland or Belgium.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html[/url]”>http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

300

<p>He was speaking about major EU countries, and Belgium or Norway hardly can be considered big, with their populations around 10 and 5 million, respectively. Although that is true, that there are only two other countries in the EU with considerable population, and that’s Italy and Spain. (And Poland, but that’s East-Central Europe, and much poorer.) Therefore saying that Germany, France and the UK are the only big EU countries with a standard of living comparable to the US is somewhat biased, as there are not many big countries in the EU :smiley: Most of the small ones have pretty high living standards. And really low crime rates ;)</p>