<p>I live in the United States and just recently looked into University College London. What's a general acceptance rate for UCL? Any other experiences/information is welcome too</p>
<p>What program are you applying for?</p>
1 Like
<p>Archaeology. Sorry forgot to mention that</p>
1 Like
<p>And, what are your stats like, so we can make a comparison? </p>
<p>Archaeology isn’t a tough program to get onto, unless you’re trying to get into Oxbridge. </p>
<p>UCL doesn’t have a campus but it is in a nice location in the heart of London. The environment around UCL is pretty nice and the student housing are mostly within walking distance from the university and several shopping centers and public offices. UCL has a nice sports center and the student union is fantastic.</p>
1 Like
<p>My gpa is 4.8 and I’m taking the act soon. I’m expecting to get at least a 30</p>
<p>
Oxford takes fewer students than UCL, which in turn takes fewer students than Cambridge. Most of the other good archaeology programs (Durham, Liverpool, Exeter, Sheffield, etc.) are generally less selective than the big three. </p>
<p>As RML notes, UCL does not have much of a campus, but the architecture and facilities are nice, and it’s in a lovely part of London. The British Museum is a short walk from campus, and the Petrie Museum on campus is decent. The Institute has its own collections, I believe. </p>
<p>I personally don’t think UCL is worth the cost for an American undergraduate. There are many very good archaeology programs in the US, and you’d be far more likely to get financial and/or merit aid here. A much better option, I think, would be to do a year abroad and then consider getting a MA or MPhil at UCL after graduation (there are many funding options available for that).</p>
<p>UCL requires three or more AP tests at scores of at least 4 each, mostly 5s. The ACT or SAT on their own are not sufficient. </p>
<p>See:
[Entry</a> Requirements](<a href=“http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/international-students/country-information/north-america/united-states/entry-requirements]Entry”>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/international-students/country-information/north-america/united-states/entry-requirements)</p>
<p>And I don’t entirely agree with the above poster. For those students whose EFC is very high, UCL can be cheaper - it’s around a total cost of $35,000. Meanwhile places like NYU and Columbia run $55,000+.</p>
1 Like
<p>Sure, it can be cheaper, but for what? You compare UCL to Columbia, yet they are hardly in the same league. NYU is also a way bigger name in the states (and elsewhere) than UCL. Getting an Oxbridge BA most certainly makes sense, but I would never understand those whish to go to any other UK university for undergrad studies. It’s not because of the quality of the UK institutions, but because nobody knows anything about them in the US (with the possible exception of the academia, but that’s a whole different question), and this hardly works in their favour.</p>
<p>Columbia and UCL aren’t in the same league? UCL is frequently recognized as one of the world top universities along with columbia… So I have no idea what you’re talking about?</p>
<p>See:
[University</a> College London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London]University”>University College London - Wikipedia)
Scroll down to “rankings” </p>
<p>UCL is also one of the most sought after schools in terms of employment by top CEOs and executives?</p>
<p>See:
[Education</a> - Image - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Education - Image - NYTimes.com”>Education - Image - NYTimes.com)</p>
<p>So… I really fail to see how it is that you come to say UCL is not in the same league as Columbia, when it is, and how employers don’t know about it, when it is one of the most sought after colleges by employers all over the world?</p>
1 Like
<p>@warblersrule what colleges did you have in mind for the US?</p>
1 Like
<p>“I really fail to see how it is that you come to say UCL is not in the same league as Columbia, when it is, and how employers don’t know about it, when it is one of the most sought after colleges by employers all over the world?”</p>
<p>It’s hardly on the same league with Columbia. Nothing short of Oxbridge is on the same league with the Ivies. I wouldn’t recommend choosing a non-Oxbridge school over an Ivy unless finance is an significant issue.</p>
<p>
Columbia is more selective, more focused on undergraduates, far wealthier, and generally has a great deal more research going on. </p>
<p>However! Archaeology at UCL is one of those programs that far exceeds the overall institutional reputation (c.f. film at USC or creative writing at Iowa). In fact, it has an extremely strong claim to being the best program of its kind in the English-speaking world. Certainly Columbia has no significant strength in archaeology, nor do Princeton and Dartmouth – Penn alone among the Ivies would even come close to UCL in this area. (Brown has the money to become a powerhouse, but it has not used it effectively enough to be a strong contender.) </p>
<p>That said, I stand by my earlier statement about American universities being a better bet for undergraduate studies, though I admit that NYU2013 is correct about UCL being cheaper for those with a lot of $$$ to spend. </p>
<p>
That depends entirely on:</p>
<p>(1) Your stats
(2) Your EFC
(3) Your academic interests
(4) What you’re looking for in a college</p>
1 Like
<p>@IvyPBear</p>
<p>Then why is ranked so similarly? Why do employers rank it so highly?</p>
<p>Note: I’m not attacking you or insinuating you’re wrong. I’m genuinely curious as to why the rankings disagree with what you say.</p>
1 Like
<p>I’d take Columbia over UCL. But I’d take UCL over NYU, for undergrad education.</p>
<p>That’s the point: Columbia is a way more selective. Let’s face with it: with a few exceptions, UCL and other top-notch UK universities get the “Oxbridge rejected” applicants. They can be truly brilliant, but again, they failed to enter Oxbridge (Nope, I don’t want to start a dispute over Oxbridge admissions. Interestingly, there was a study, released in April, that found that Oxbridge students, despite the academic year is shorter for them (three terms, one term is 2 months), spend about 40-50% more time with their studies than students at other UK universities. That’s a lot.)
Money? The current endowment of Columbia is $ 7,8 billion, whereas UCLÂ’s endowment is $ 110 million (subject to market fluctuations, as itÂ’s endowment is fairly obviously in British pound).</p>
<p>As a fact of matter, Columbia donÂ’t focus on undergrad education but UCL do; 2/3 of the students at Columbia are grads, while about 2/3 of the students at UCl are undergrads. UCL is indeed ranked in the top 10 by the two leading British rankings, TIMES and QS, but British rankings tend to favour British universities. QS put Cambridge to the top a year ago, which is somewhat acceptable, but this year, TIMES put CalTech as the best university in the world. Again, CalTech. Without a shadow of doubt, CalTech is a top 10 university, but itÂ’s science focused, just like MIT. I would love to study humanities or arts there.
ARWU, the Sanghai Ranking, which is the oldest, and perhaps the most respected list (and which is without any notable national bias), ranks UCL as the 20th best university in the world. Columbia comes as 8th. </p>
<p>The New York Times list, “What business leaders say”, posted by NYU2013 puts Columbia as 5th, and UCL as 12th. (Whereas Cambridge comes by 4th and Oxford as 8th.)
UCL is a way less selective, have a way less money, and a way less famous than Columbia (and have, say, a way less Nobel prize winners.) DonÂ’t get me wrong: UCL is a wonderful institution. But by no means in the same league with Columbia.</p>
<p>The ARWU puts it above Duke. And employers put it above Princeton, Duke and Brown. So the facts you’ve cited simply don’t support your statements. Unless of course Columbia is better than Duke and Princeton?</p>
<p>Yes, Columbia has more money in its endowment. But, as we know, UCL is a public, not private university. It has the largest medical research facility in the EU. </p>
<p>Let’s look at interesting tables:
In 2007, Columbia spent $545 million on research despite having a $7 billion endowment
<a href=“http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf[/url]”>http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>In 2009, UCL received 765 million in research grants, which, at the current exchange rate is 1.196 billion with only a small few hundred million endowment. Yes, 360 million pounds was not spent directly on research, but that’s still 405 million pounds for research. Which is quite similar to $545 million, in fact, it’s actually roughly $860 million. That’s a lot more than Columbia.<br>
[Research</a> Funding](<a href=“http://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/excellence/funding]Research”>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/excellence/funding)</p>
<p>And from wikipedia: For the period 1999 to 2009 it was the 13th most-cited university in the world (and the most-cited in Europe). UCL had a total income of ÂŁ762 million in 2009/10, of which ÂŁ275 million was from research grants and contracts. 275 million pounds at the average exchange rate over that time period is $434 million for research. </p>
<p>So again, I’m still missing how Columbia is this huge power house and UCL is not?</p>
1 Like
<p>“You compare UCL to Columbia, yet they are hardly in the same league”</p>
<p>… what? maybe that’s true in terms of their reputations in the States, but besides that, UCL and Columbia are definitely comparable</p>
1 Like
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you failed to realize that UCL is heavily funded by the UK government. Aside from that, UCL earns from several businesses it owns, including office rentals around London, which provides a huge amount of income for the University of London. So, even without the L110M endowment fund, UCL would easily manage to operate as a first-class university. I may be wrong on this but I think UCL has a bigger operating budget than Columbia has. Saying this does not, however, mean UCL is superior to Columbia. I’m just saying endowment funds are not as meaningful in the UK as it is in the US.</p>
1 Like
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no doubts in my mind that when you take into account everything that pertains to academic superiority, brand name, etc., Columbia > Duke. </p>
<p>Princeton, however, is in a league above Columbia.</p>
<p>Even if it were true that Columbia > Duke, Duke is still better than some of the ivies. Yet, IvyPBear wants to say that UCL is clearly not equal to any of the ivies. But, doesn’t all the data indicate otherwise? UCL could be considered on at least the same level as Duke, could it not? As well as Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, no?</p>