<p>hi,
i am planning on applying to study EE at Cambridge university (UK) and Imperial College London (I live in the UK). However I would like to live/work in the USA after my bachelors, possibly pursuing a job straightaway or (more preferably) getting a masters/phd in the states (specifically i mean more prestigious univs - stanford, berekely, MIT etc). My question is basically, what is the reputation of these two universities as far as meeting this goal goes? I'm guessing Cambridge is a respected university there, but what about Imperial?
thanks</p>
<p>With engineering in mind, Imperial will be fine. It could even be a better choice than Cambridge.</p>
<p>IC is obviously better than Cambridge and oxford when it comes to engineering. </p>
<p>Why don't you apply for a U.S college?</p>
<p>I'd say Imperial is a bit better. Cambridge probably has better general name recognition - but engineering departments in the US likely realize Imperial is simply better than Cambridge.</p>
<p>If you get a 4-year MEng from either Imperial or Cambridge, you'll be far better prepared for PhD studies than any regular US student with a B.S only or even a coursework-based master's degree. That's because the MEng curriculum in top British universities usuallly goes much deeper than the normal undergraduate curriculum in the US.</p>
<p>Having said that, keep in mind that competition to get into MIT, Stanford or Berkeley for graduate school is fierce and you will be competing against the best in the world. More so on than your undergraduate transcript, they will want to see evidences of research experience (for example, papers published in peer-reviewed journals
or proceedings of international conferences). You will also need strong letters of recommendation from profs emphasizing your ability as an independent researcher.</p>
<p>On the specific question of Imperial vs Cambridge, I'd say Imperial has the advantage of offering more specialized degrees. For example, if you are an EE major, you will study EE right from your freshman year, whereas, in Cambridge, you will have "general engineering" (i.e. a mix of electrical/information, mechanical and structural/materials engineering) for most of the first two years and specialize only later.</p>
<p>Talking about research reputation though, speaking only of the (very specific) area where I got my PhD (Bayesian signal processing), I can tell you Cambridge is probably ** the ** top university ** in the world ** in that particular field. In other areas however, Imperial may be stronger and there may be even areas where both Imperial and Cambridge are weak. What you should do as an undergrad, either at Imperial or Cambridge, is to try to work with profs that are well-known internationally in their areas (normally those from the strongest research groups) and who could give you the best letters of recommendation.</p>
<p>In answer to yucca's question the reason I am not applying to a US college for my undergrad itself is not because I have not considered the option but mainly because I probably only looked into it in detail a bit too late to make a worthwhile application. (However if I don't get into cambridge or imperial this time around I'll probably take a year out, reapply and apply to some US colleges as well).</p>
<p>So considering that most people here think that IC is on par with or maybe even better than Cambridge for engineering, how would going to either of them for undergrad compare with going to say, stanford or MIT for undergrad as well (as far as future prospects go)?</p>
<p>I doubt anyone would consider it to be the level of MIT/Stanford. But being compared to UMich seems fair. Purely speculation though. But this is only from people who have actually heard of Imperial. The only people who have likely heard of Imperial are academics or Europeans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt anyone would consider it to be the level of MIT/Stanford. But being compared to UMich seems fair. Purely speculation though. But this is only from people who have actually heard of Imperial. The only people who have likely heard of Imperial are academics or Europeans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Imperial is actually ranked # 4 in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) list of the world's top 100 technology universities. UMich on the other hand is ranked 36.</p>
<p>Sorry, when I said "anyone" I was referring to Americans. That's why I said:
[quote]
But this is only from people who have actually heard of Imperial.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Americans, most definitely will not view IC undergrad over UMich (Times only looks at grad stuff, anyway).</p>
<p>THES rankings are pretty clearly biased against American Universities. I mean the fact that 10% or so of a universities score is based on 'Internationalness' or something like that is one reason (someone coming to Spain from Portugal is considered International while a guy going from the East to the West coast is not) and their Peer Review section also seems biased. I mean Oxbridge at #1 and #2? above Harvard? come on.</p>
<p>In case you're wondering here are the Peer Review ranks in THES 2006:
1 Cambridge University UK 100 79
2 Oxford University UK 97 76
3 Harvard University US 93 100
4 University of California, Berkeley US 92 75
5 Stanford University US 82 85</p>
<p>God forbid Harvard dosen't come in first in one of these silly rankings! Clearly the ranking must be crap then!</p>
<p>Seriously though, it's really hard for us Americans to realize but on a worldwide scale Oxford and Cambridge still come in top as the most widely recognized Universities and what the average joe schmo on the street will say is 'most prestegious.' Outside the US, the Ivy League only carries limited name recognition and only Harvard really stands out on its own, although still second to Oxbridge. Berkley, Michigan, Stanford, MIT... in most places outside of the US (apart from academic circles) nobody's ever heard of them.</p>
<p>Getting back to the initial question, Cambridge is better known within the US but Imperial will also be known within Engineering circles. If you want to do a PhD then a broader level of study in undergraduate will likely make you a bit better rounded (as a PhD is just focused on one very specific subject depending on your research). Probably should apply to both and see what happens... if you get into Cambridge I'd stick with that but there's nothing wrong with Imperial.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Seriously though, it's really hard for us Americans to realize but on a worldwide scale Oxford and Cambridge still come in top as the most widely recognized Universities and what the average joe schmo on the street will say is 'most prestegious.' Outside the US, the Ivy League only carries limited name recognition and only Harvard really stands out on its own, although still second to Oxbridge. Berkley, Michigan, Stanford, MIT... in most places outside of the US (apart from academic circles) nobody's ever heard of them.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>rocketman I live overseas and I have been to countries all over the world. Yes Oxbridge is prestigious but so are HYPSM. A degree from a prestigious university in America is probably viewed higher than one from Oxbridge where I live. No Harvard doesn't need to be first but come on THES is based in the UK-its pretty obvious they have some bias...</p>
<p>First of all the THES ranking is quantitative, meaning facts and actual figures...therefore, bias is nearly impossible. THES rankings do not take into consideration the very figures which would strategically place UK universities at the top of the list...Secondly, of the top 20 unis in the THES rankings the vast majority are American and only 4 are British! So wake up and smell the coffee superwizard!
P.S: Where in the hell does UMichigan come in to the picture of top academic institutions of higher education? Do you live in Michigan or something?</p>
<p>sraalles1 peer review accounts for 40% of the rankings! Don't take my work for it. In the 2006 rankings:
[QUOTE]
peer review accounts for 40 per
cent of a university’s possible score
in the World University Rankings
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Also I have issues with this:
[QUOTE]
The final 10 per cent of our score is intended
to determine how global universities are:
5 per cent is awarded on the basis of the
percentage of overseas staff each university
has, and a further 5 per cent for its
percentage of overseas students
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Of course who Peer Reviews is entirely up to them...</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong I think Cambridge and Imperial are great universities and I do not think that all the best universities are exclusively located in the US. That being said I do not think that Oxbridge should be ranked higher than MIT, Stanford and Yale.</p>
<p>^I searched a bit and found out that only 685 reviewers were from North American compared to 1132 from Europe.</p>
<p>^The fact that people get so obsessed when their favorite school isn't as high as they want in one of these silly rankings and go to so much effort to say why that particular ranking is rubbish only furthers my amusement at people's obsession with such things. </p>
<p>Seriously, the rankings don't matter one bit. Anyone who is intelligent and dynamic enough to have an opinion that matters is intelligent and dynamic enough to develope their own unique opinion about different schools and not let a newspaper or magazine tell them what to think!</p>
<p>Imperial and Cambridge are both good options. You must remember that the quality of the undergrad course is your main concern.</p>
<p>I would chose Imperial because I think it is slightly better for engineering. Maybe I'm biased because I know lots of people who have done a 1yr MEng course there (and I know a few muppets who went to Cambridge). Apparently, Imperial has the best engineering (graduate) MEng degrees in the world...The students certainly have to earn them. But, of course, you are concerned with the undergrad courses only, and I honestly know very little about their quality.</p>
<p>I think it's worthwhile pointing out that you don't have to enroll in the "top" universities undergrad programs to pursue a masters degree in one. I know countless people who have attended a virtually unknown college, which doesn't have university status, who have gone on to study at Imperial, MIT, etc. It is a reflection on the quality of the undergrad course.</p>
<p>BOTTOM LINE: Judge the undergrad courses. Choose the college where you'll have more fun. Get caught up in the bull of reputation/name recognition at you peril. It means nothing.</p>
<p>There are opportunities open to Oxbridge students that are not open to anyone else. University isn't just about the course, either. Who you'll meet, and who you'll become friends with can have a massive long-term impact on your career prospects. Nepotism... it sucks but it's reality. </p>
<p>Go to Cambridge. Whether or not its undergraduate engineering programme is marginally better or marginally less excellent than Imperial's is irrelevant. You should go to Cambridge because of all the other doors it will open.</p>
<p>nauru,</p>
<p>I fully acknowledge the value of having good contacts, but suggesting that your career may be hindered by not attending Oxbridge is absolutely laughable. You can make equally good contacts at any college which has quality engineering courses, even those without "name recognition".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would chose Imperial because I think it is slightly better for engineering. Maybe I'm biased because I know lots of people who have done a 1yr MEng course there (and I know a few muppets who went to Cambridge). Apparently, Imperial has the best engineering (graduate) MEng degrees in the world...The students certainly have to earn them. But, of course, you are concerned with the undergrad courses only, and I honestly know very little about their quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess you are confusing things. Imperial does not offer one-year MEng degrees. It offers instead one-year graduate (or, in British terminology, postgraduate) ** MSc ** degrees (for example in control systems, or in communications/signal processing).</p>
<p>In the UK, contrary to the US, the MEng is not a graduate degree, but rather a 4-year undergraduate course of study (or, in US terminology, "major") in engineering. At the undergraduate level, Imperial offers both 3-year BEng courses and 4-year MEng degrees, although nowadays very few students choose the 3-year degree. At Cambridge and Oxford on the other hand, only the 4-year MEng degree is available (i.e. there are no 3-year undergraduate engineering courses at Oxbridge). </p>
<p>I guess the source of the confusion is that 4-year MEng classes are actually taught at a master's level by US standards. A sample of 4th-year classes in information/electrical engineering at Cambridge is found here and here. For an Imperial sample of 4th-year courses in the same areas,
I suggest this site and also check another site here.</p>
<p>As you can see from the syllabi above, graduating from a 4-year MEng program at Imperial or Cambridge is indeed roughly equivalent to completing a 3-year BEng plus a 1-year MSc in another UK university or even getting a 4-year BS plus a coursework-based (in British terminology, "taught") master's degree from a US university.</p>