University College London

College Search & Selection
21

<p>As a fact of matter, Columbia is far more prestigious than Duke…I don’t think anyone would argue against this, with the possible exception of people in the South. I can’t recall that Duke was ever ranked higher than Columbia in the USNews. But I love your logic; as Columbia and Cambridge are considered roughly equal, and according to You, ULC and Columbia are also equal, you just have made a brilliant discovery: UCL and Cambridge are equal :smiley: Great to know, LOL. </p>

<p>Princeton, on the other hand, is a different matter. It’s one of the Big Three and, even if just slightly, but considered more prestigious than Columbia, despite Columbia ranks higher on word rankings. Nevertheless there are three major differences between the two universities: Princeton is basically an undergraduate institution, whereas Columbia is overwhelmingly a graduate university. Princeton don’t have a law or business school, whereas Columbia does.</p>

<p>Nevertheless I can’t imagine any places on the world where UCL is considered more prestigious than Columbia. The same goes to the academia; a PhD from UCL is far inferior to a PhD from Columbia.
On the Nobel laureates by university affiliation list, Columbia comes as first (followed by Cambridge as second), UCL comes at a very distant 23th. Nevertheless nobody is denying that UCL is a research powerhouse, because it is. However, the quality of education differs a lot (the difference between the average Harvard and Columbia student is neglectable, and their workload is quite the same. But the student body of Oxbridge and the student body of UCL differs a lot, just like their workload. The quality of their education also differs a lot.) Again, I’m not trying to deny the importance of UCL, but despite your obvious love for this great institution, it’s not comparable with Columbia. Even people in the UK would agree with this…</p>

<p>RML: That’s and other question that with the notable exception of Cambridge (£ 4,3 billion) and Oxford (£3,3 billion) no other UK university have serious endowment. (UCL may have businesses, but Oxbridge owns a lot of stuff, starting with land worth billions of pounds, moreover Cambridge have very strong ties with the high-tech industry; just think about the Silicon Fen around Cambridge, which was originally developed by the University, and which is by far the largest tech cluster in the UK.) </p>

<p>As concerns operating budget: I can’t find up-to date data, but at 2009, the operating budget for Columbia was $ 3 billion, while in 2010, the operating budget of UCL was £710 million ($1,1 Billion on current exchange rate).Again, there is also a major difference between the student bodies, their workload, and in the quality of teaching.</p>

<p>UCL most certainly have a very strong reputation in the UK, but for the rest of the world…I’m not sure…it’s a great university anyway :)</p>

22

<p>No. I never stated Columbia was equal Cambridge. I consider Oxbridge to be equal to HYPSM. Not Columbia. Oxbridge are above Columbia. So no, UCL is not equal to Cambridge. But please don’t attempt to make false inferences.</p>

23

<p>

I remember one professor told me UCL has a bigger resources than Oxford when it comes to land value for lease. The land owned by UCL are mostly in London. They’re not only in London, but in the very heart of London, where the rental value is very high. </p>

<p>

I doubt if that is true. That would make it even bigger than Yale’s (which has 2.7B during that same period) and Yale is richer than Columbia. </p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122946236417011651.html[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122946236417011651.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>My point about endowment is that, UK universities are heavily funded by the British government, so they do not rely so much on endowment funds. Notice that there are very few universities there (only about a hundred) as opposed to more than 3k in the US, and a few of these universities do even enjoy a much higher budget than the rest, especially those universities that are members of the Russell Group where UCL is one of the members.</p>

1 Like
24

<p>

British PhDs in general are viewed as inferior to top American ones in academia. They have neither the hoops to jump through that we do (MA comps, PhD quals, etc.) nor teaching experience; the lack of transcripts can also hurt when applying for jobs. It’s fine to get a MPhil from Oxford, but most people come back to the States for a PhD.</p>

<p>As for why Princeton and Duke are being brought in, I haven’t the faintest idea. Both have virtually no archaeology offerings whatsoever. Really, it’s ridiculous how fast threads get derailed. Let’s shelve the petty squabbles about prestige and stay on focus.</p>

1 Like
25

<p>Actually, there is teaching experience offered at Oxbridge…and I’m sure the same goes to many UK universities. In my field (social sciences), Oxbridge graduates do very well in the US; as a fact of matter, Ivy League institutions are filled with Oxbridge alumni. The same goes to Stanford. I find it hard to believe that any US professors (I have met quite a few) would consider a Cambridge PhD inferior to a YPSM PhD. ( I’m not mentioning Harvard as it’s…well…Harvard.) In my field, I cannot name a single university from the top 150 range that don’t have Oxbridge alumni (PhDs). Maybe LSU, hm… :smiley:
You are talking about a whole different issue; “nor teaching experience; the lack of transcripts can also hurt when applying for jobs”. You are very much right, but that’s called the transatlantic gap. You can also mention the relatively weak alumni network; Oxbridge alumni is fairly strong in North America, but because of the simple fact that Oxford and Cambridge are UK universities, they cannot match the numbers and connections of North American HYPSM alumni. In Europe, it’s quite the reverse, but all of this is hardly surprising. The systems also differ, but this, again, have nothing to do with quality. If a US professors think that US style PhD training is better than UK style PhD courses, that’s also not a quality issue. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. </p>

<p>RML: Well, Columbia, as far as I know, spends more on research that Yale. Of course, Yale spends In any case, one thing is certain: the operating budget of Columbia is surely more than $ 1,1 billion.</p>

1 Like
26

<p>

I’m not sure about that given that Yale is competing with Harvard and is trying to boost its engineering department. It also has a top medical school which is highly committed to extensive cutting-edge research.</p>

<p>

Perhaps, but then again, what has this got to do with the quality of the undergraduate education? Undergrads spends more on instructional purposes rather than research. </p>

<p>I would say Columbia is a little superior to UCL. I also think Columbia is more prestigious. UCL is a great UK university and when compared to US schools, would pit against the likes of NYU. For undergrad, I would choose it over some of the top 20 US schools like Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame or WashingtonUStL. I would choose an Ivy, even Cornell, and Berkeley/Michigan/Virginia however, over it.</p>

1 Like
27

<p>I wish people like GeraldM and IvyPBear wouldn’t post, they seem to actively search for threads just to criticise UK universities and undermine their reputations abroad with false information. I would advise the OP to ignore whatever they say, especially IvyP who seems to think the Ivies and Stanford are better than every other college in the world, no matter where it is or what your field of study is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is simply not true; many people who are accepted into Oxford or Cambridge choose to study elsewhere in the UK. I actually know somebody on another forum who chose to study at UCL over Cambridge and another who was rejected from everywhere she applied bar Oxford.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t understand this type of attitude at all, what does fame or selectivity have to do with the level of education you receive? The US is the only country where these things seem to matter.</p>

<p>OP: UCL is a very, very good university with many world leading departments. UCL’s Institute of Archaeology is one of, if not the best place to study archaeology in the world. If you’d like I can give you the name of an American on the student room (the British version of this forum) who studied for her undergrad at UCL - she may be better placed to answer your questions than the people here.</p>

28

<p>Just to clarify a few things: I have done a masters at Cambridge and now pursuing a DPhil at Oxford. Why on Earth would I argue against UK universities? Indeed, I don’t consider other UK universities equal to Oxbridge, but I’m hardly alone with that; all the rankings agree at this point. I have to admit, I never fancied with the idea of applying to European universities other than Oxbridge to do a masters or a PhD, as it would be pointless.</p>

<p>“That is simply not true; many people who are accepted into Oxford or Cambridge choose to study elsewhere in the UK. I actually know somebody on another forum who chose to study at UCL over Cambridge and another who was rejected from everywhere she applied bar Oxford.”</p>

<p>I love this part!!! It seems that almost EVERYONE have a friend or neighbour or pet in the UK who rejected Oxbridge for an other university!
In reality, it’s not like that. Have a look at this: <a href=“http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/44%20Oxford%20and%20Cambridge%20summary.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/44%20Oxford%20and%20Cambridge%20summary.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A study completed this April, which, among many other things, also states that “For all UK students applying to Oxford for entry in 2008 the conversion rate was 92.5 per cent, and for all of Cambridge’s admissions (including overseas students) the conversion rate was 86.8 per cent.” </p>

<p>In other words, merely 8,5% of the UK admitted reject Oxford and, while there is no domestic data for Cambridge, 13,2 of All (International +UK) accepted students reject Cambridge. I don’t know about you, but for me, “Many people” is not equal with 8,5% LOL </p>

<p>“don’t understand this type of attitude at all, what does fame or selectivity have to do with the level of education you receive?”</p>

<p>So, you argue that people can have the same education whilst surrounded by morons, and the same surrounded by geniuses, am I right? My God, the case point is that the student body differs and, fairly obviously, the education too.
Now, it’s a fact that UCL students are clever, of course, but Columbia is a way more selective, and admits the best applicants, and it’s applicant pool is considerably stronger that UCL’s. </p>

<p>RML: It’s matter of taste, really. I would choose most of the mentioned universities over UCL, but have to mention that I prefer the liberal arts system over the UK one (not for grad studies, for sure). I would probably not choose Notre Dame (I will never understand what’s the big deal about it…Georgetown is cool, and a way less Catholic, but ND…) Emory and Virginia over it. (BTW, what’s the problem with Cornell? :smiley: Ranked same as Brown in USNews, and a way higher in many other rankings. I would choose Brown, thought;))</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>If you don’t believe me I will gladly supply you with their TSR forum names; you can ask them yourself. Whilst I agree it is a bit anecdotal it was still worth mentioning because it shows that not everyone believes Oxbridge is the best place to be. Lots of universities in the UK have departments which are just as good if not better than Oxbridge and many students opt to study there instead.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’ve completely (perhaps willfully?) misinterpreted what I said. There’s a huge difference between taking in morons and not being as selective as US colleges.</p>

<p>Selectivity on academic grounds is entirely right and proper, but that is not the type of selectivity most US colleges employ. Sure, students at the best American schools are smart but that’s not why they got in; they got in because they’re lacrosse champions or chess wizards or have some other amazing sounding but really quite irrelevant extracurricular to pad their CVs with. How exactly does being at a college with a load of sporting champions and do-gooders improve the level of education you receive? It doesn’t - the idea that Columbia is somehow better than UCL because its more ‘selective’ is laughable.</p>

30

<p>“If you don’t believe me I will gladly supply you with their TSR forum names; you can ask them yourself” “many students op instead”</p>

<p>Dear God… I’m not arguing against the fact that there are some people who choose other universities instead of Oxford or Cambridge, (there are people who reject Harvard too, despite given a full ride) but you mentioned “lots of people”. I have linked a legit research with FACTS. In the year 2008, from those admitted Oxford and other places, 92.5% choose Oxford. Roughly the same goes to Cambridge. This is a FACT. Not an alleged “I have met many people who rejected Oxbridge”, but a research with all the data needed. Again, these are facts. From 100 people admitted Oxford and an other university, 92 (and a half :D) choose Oxford. It’s not a speculation, not based on “what would you do” type of question, this research based on simple admission statistics. I fail to see the “many students”. Again. 8,5%. Lots…sure…:D</p>

<p>“Lots of universities in the UK have departments which are just as good if not better than Oxbridge and many students opt to study there instead.”</p>

<p>Again, “lots”…yea…based on the same fact as “many people reject Oxbridge”, I assume? :D</p>

<p>Please link those rankings, let be national or the big three world rankings that would prove your theory, and there are UK universities which are filled with departments better than Oxbridge. Facts please. You may also link relevant subject rankings. Don’t get me wrong: there’s no university on the planet that have the best department in everything. But it’s hard to find any subject in the UK where Oxbridge is not in the top 3 (given that they have departments in the particular field in question). I just had a look on the Guardian 2012 subject rankings. Not to surprisingly, it’s hard to find a single subject without Oxbridge ranked as first (again, I’m not talking about, say, Agriculture, which is without an Oxbridge department and so they aren’t on the ranking for this and the like). </p>

<p>From the 46 subjects ranked, Oxbridge offer courses in 31. From this 31 subject, there are 4, where you can’t find either Cambridge or Oxford as first. Archaeology; UCL comes as first, Cambridge second, Oxford third , Architecture: UCL tops, Cambridge second, Oxford don’t have a department, Music: Bristol comes as first, Oxford and second, and Cambridge as 9th. What a same. English: ULC on the top. Cambridge comes as second, Oxford as third. Four subjects. And in all subjects, either Oxford or Cambridge comes as second. </p>

<p>Maybe, just maybe, the term " Lots of universities in the UK have departments which are just as good if not better than Oxbridge " is an exaggeration…how suprising…</p>

<p>See, this is the biggest difference between us. You are operating with vague “many people” and “lots of universities”. I am operating with facts. Anyway, I’m done here, it’s a pointless dispute as you can’t cite a single fact to support you arguments and, most importantly, this thread is not about Oxbridge.</p>

31

<p>“UCL could be considered on at least the same level as Duke, could it not? As well as Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, no?”</p>

<p>No. UCL is a fine university, but it’s not on the level of Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, etc. for undergrad.</p>

<p>“Why do employers rank [UCL] so highly?”</p>

<p>The undergrads from Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, etc. are not aspiring to work for Nestle, Philips, etc.; companies like GE, let alone Nestle and Philips, can’t touch students who perform above the median at those schools. If you want to measure how desirable undergrads from a school really are, you would look at how sought much they are sought after by Goldman, Harvard Law, Harvard Med, McKinsey, and other elite firms, NGOs, and educational institutions.</p>

32

<p>@IvyPBear </p>

<p>Your comment doesn’t make any sense. You’re trying to insinuate that they ranked the schools incorrectly because Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, etc. are all top-notch universities that they wouldn’t recruit from.</p>

<p>But, the criteria is: Top chief executives and chairmen, chosen from leading companies in 10 countries, were asked to select the top universities from which they recruited. The list displays those universities most frequently selected. </p>

<p>And yet… that list has Harvard (1), Stanford (2), Yale (3), Columbia (5), Princeton (15), Duke (13), Chicago (10), Dartmouth (25), UPenn (24) all ranked really high. Along with UCL (12). So your comment doesn’t many any sense. Clearly they recruit from those universities, clearly graduates from there aren’t “untouchable” as you seem to think; otherwise HYPSM wouldn’t be ranked so highly by said executives and chairmen, would it?. Maybe you should actually read the list and criteria next time?</p>

1 Like
33

<p>@NYU2013</p>

<p>First, the definition of “leading companies” is arbitrary. Nestle and Philips are leading multinationals, but they are not what top undergrads at Ivies strive for. I suppose Stern undergrads’ goals aren’t that different that different. An accounting position at a mighty big four (all of which are leading corporations and one of which is the largest professional services firm in the world) isn’t the same as a business analyst position at Bain Capital or Centerview (which you probably haven’t even heard of). Valedictorians at Ivies gun for BainCap and Centerview.</p>

<p>Second, the study you pointed out, like all rankings based on employers’ perception, is flawed, or at least arbitrary. if you haven’t noticed, quite a few schools are ranked ahead of Princeton in the ranking you supplied.</p>

<p>In WSJ ranking, American states schools are claimed to be preferred over HYS ([TaxProf</a> Blog: WSJ College Rankings Based on Survey of Employers](<a href=“TaxProf Blog”>TaxProf Blog))</p>

<p>According to the THE ranking based on employer scores, the discrepancy between MIT (85) and Caltech (55) is 30 points on a 100 point scale. Note: Michigan State’s score is 71, which is significantly above Caltech’s score. ([Times</a> Higher Education](<a href=“Times Higher Education home | Times Higher Education (THE)”>World University Rankings | Times Higher Education (THE)))</p>

<p>In the QS ranking according to employers’ perception: both UCL and Princeton fall by at least 20 spots. ([QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/indicator-rankings/employer-review]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/indicator-rankings/employer-review))</p>

<p>This just shows that ranking based on employer assessment is flawed and arbitrary without taking in the details and specific context. My argument that employer’s ranking of universities shouldn’t be used to argue that one school is better than another isn’t flawed. You, on the other hand, brought up spurious evidence in the form of employer’s ratings to support you view that UCL is a top tier school for undergraduate education.</p>

34

<p>I’ve provided or can provide multiple different ranking systems, QS, ARWU, THE, employer rankings etc. that show UCL is a peer of the ivies. Yet you refute this and say they aren’t. Can you give me some evidence to support your claims?</p>

35

<p>You won’t make a very good academic GeraldM if you truly think 8.5% is insignificant. It’s actually quite a large anomaly; I wonder how many people who get into Harvard turn it down - probably less than 8.5%.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s based on clear methodical evidence. The most recent Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 found that 54% of UK research is either world-leading or internationally excellent. It also found that 150 of the 159 higher education institutions that took part in the study demonstrated world-leading quality research in at least one or more of their departments. </p>

<p>For someone doing a PhD you’re really very narrow minded, you don’t appear to accept anything as true unless it is shown in a university ranking list format. I can’t believe you’re quoting the Guardian as if it were fact; you ought to know that UK uni rankings fluctuate enormously ever year and are not a very good indicator of anything.</p>

36

<p>IvyPBear, not everyone who graduated from those schools deemed superior to UCL work in banks. Heck, a number of them don’t even have a job, let alone, a decent job. </p>

<p>Having said that, I think UCL is slightly inferior to those elite American schools.</p>

1 Like
37

<p>

</p>

<p>Over 30% reject Harvard.</p>

<p>GeraldM seems to be making sense quite a lot something I noticed which is on point: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The gap between the quality of students at Harvard and Columbia is not that large and there is definitely no difference in the workload. The talk on CC about academic quality is in general made up. In the US the major difference tends to be in the student body.</p>

<p>@Dionysus</p>

<p>I dont know if the academic gap between UCL and Oxbridge at the undergrad level is tiny lol. Moreover the quality of alumni coming out of Columbia (An undergrad that is third the size of UCL) is huge. You think people get into Columbia because they can play chess lol maybe its because they are both smarter (Smarter than a UCL grad) and more accomplished. Even the legacy admits are much smarter. </p>

<p>With respect to job opportunities. Laughter if you think UCL can match Dartmouth/Cornell/Columbia/Northwestern for elite firms. Just go online and look at the profiles of people at top companies in the US vs elite companies in the UK/Europe. Count the number of UCL grads in the UK and count the Dartmouth/Cornell/Columbia e.t.c then adjust for size.</p>

<p>Wait . . . I guess the next step would be to post world rankings that are not reflective of what happens in real life and call anyone who argues with you a myopic american lol .</p>

38

<p>sefago, you cannot compare America to UK and vice versa. There’s no point in your comparison. UCL students are not significantly less smarter than Oxbridge’s students. Oxbridge rejects a massive number of very talented students, and often, are absorbed by the likes of UCL, St Andrews, Warwick, Durham, aside from Imperial and LSE. My younger brother went to Warwick. He confesses that their maths at Warwick are just as rigorous as the maths at Cambridge, and they’re getting almost identical quality of attention by the university. They get tutors, and have fantastic facilities where they have access 24/7. In turn, they have access to companies where many Cambridge grads eventually end up working. So, yes, in the UK, there is a gap between Oxbridge and the rest of the elite universities in terms of undergrad teaching and research quality. But that gap has narrowed down in the last era or so. And, I would argue that Cambridge is superior to Columbia. Heck, I would even go far and say that Cambridge is slightly superior to Princeton.</p>

1 Like
39

<p>

</p>

<p>Really, 30% of domestic students who receive offers from Harvard turn it down? Do you have any evidence to support that?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How are you measuring the quality or the ‘smartness’ of Columbia’s students in comparison to UCLs? Columbia’s student body is not a third of UCLs; no Ivy League college has an undergraduate enrollment that small. UCL has 11,970 undergrads, Columbia has 7,160. Columbia actually has more students if you include grad students.</p>

40

<p>And, that 11,970 probably includes those students studying law and medicine at UCL since those programs aren’t considered post-graduate education in the UK.</p>

1 Like