University College London

[Dionysus58]

<p>

Nope, it shows nothing at all. It only shows that, according to British Assesments, UK universities have world class research. But please tell me where this research ranks departments. Interestingly enough, when it comes to rank the departments and subjects, almost always Oxbridge can be found on the top. If it’s an international ranking, then Oxbridge are the highest ranked UK universities. Fact. You can have problems with one ranking, and indeed, rankings can be misleading. But every single ranking? Hardly

</p>

<p>The whole purpose of RAE was to rank individual departments by the quality of their research. It says “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” - I don’t know about you but world leading suggests to me Oxbridge standard or better. As for rankings, only The Guardian ranks departments and that is hardly comprehensive.</p>

<p>

you’re still yet to offer any proof why other departments are equal or superior to the Oxbridge ones.

</p>

<p>I’ve given enough evidence; you’re just choosing to ignore it. Actually now that I think about it… UCL has at least four departments that can give Harvard, let alone Oxbridge a run for its money: The SSEES, The Bartlett, The Slade and the Institute of Archaeology</p>

[sefago]

<p>

sefago, you probably went there for grad and postgrad education. So, perhaps this has slipped in your memory, but the undergrad admissions at UK unis is entirely/complete different from the grad/postgrad level.

</p>

<p>My advisor was for undergrad and he was American too with an undergrad from an Ivy and a PhD from an Ivy. I kind of would trust his assessment of student quality over people on CC since he has been in the business for years. Of course this is purely anecdotal (I could be making it up) but I am pointing out that everything you are saying is not new to me. I also have other reasons for knowing the undergrad system very well that i choose not to divulge online. </p>

<p>

Many students in the US apply to more than 6 schools. I applied to 12. Many of my former classmates applied to 10, at least.

</p>

<p>Many but not all. Also you are international (though a US citizen). Internationals apply to more its a general fact because of the rumor that you need ECs and that people with a 2000 have a chance of getting to a top university. So they hedge their bets by applying to more. Most Americans dont do that lol.</p>

<p>

My point is that you cannot compare student quality of UK unis to US unis because you have no basis for comparison. A-Levels/IB vs GPA+SATs. They’re not entirely the same

</p>

<p>I am not comparing them at all based on that but on a percentile.</p>

<p>But also I think you cry wolf while being a wolf. You make statements based on student quality while simultaneously arguing that they cannot be compared.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

The Middle 50% of SATs at Columbia is 1990 – 2290. Average Ivy League SAT Scores: Harvard, Yale and More That means, 25% of Columbia students don’t have SATs above 1990, correct? Now, if Columbia has 8k undergrads, that means 2,000 Columbia students don’t have SAT scores over 2000, correct?

</p>

<p>No it doesnt. It just means you are bad with statistics.</p>

<p>Think again. I have no intention of spoon feeding.</p>

<p>Ok I will be nice am actually in a good mood. You dont just combine all the scores in the 25th percentile. Some students get a low 25th percentile score while getting very high scores in other sections. I think this has been beaten to death on CC.</p>

<p>Over a 100,000 students of the 2.1 million+ score over 2100 on the SATs where do you think they get accepted? I would wager only a very small percentage- maybe 5 to 10% max at Columbia have below 2000 but its impossible to tell you need to see the combined scores.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

I don’t understand why you’re pretending it’s a joke - or is this simply a clever ruse to get out of finding some evidence to support your stupid assertions. If I applied to elite US colleges with perfect GCSE and A level grades, a great SAT score and brilliant essays but had no ECs and no life outside of school I would not get in.

</p>

<p>I laugh because you shamelessly spout out misinformation with total confidence. </p>

<p>Your hypothetical situation cannot be answered because its purely hypothetical. What I can confidently say though is that ECs are not that important for internationals.</p>

<p>Also schools like Columbia want the whole package- good grades, good ECs but would not allow shortcomings in either. Just because they want people with good ECs does not preclude these students from having top academics. Its not mutually exclusive mate.</p>

<p>

Your assumption is incorrect. Are you really suggesting people go through uni league tables trying to get into the most prestigious uni they can with their grades? Most people I know choose to go to universities which offer them the best combination of course and living styles. For example: If I wanted to study German I would not even bother applying to Oxford because its mostly literature and I don’t like lit much.

</p>

<p>Hmm so then you will agree that people in UK universities are of mixed ability and aptitude? A lot of students who study German might not be good at anything else and have a weak quantitative aptitude.</p>

[GeraldM]

<p>

The whole purpose of RAE was to rank individual departments by the quality of their research. It says “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” - I don’t know about you but world leading suggests to me Oxbridge standard or better. As for rankings, only The Guardian ranks departments and that is hardly comprehensive.

</p>

<p>I find it fairly interesting that despite you refuse to accept any world/subject ranking (ARWU, QS, TIMES), or British rankings (Guardian, TIMES, Sunday TIMES and so on) you accept the results of the RAE without hesitation, which states that there are 150 world-leading institutions in the UK (institutions with at least one world-leading department.)</p>

<p>If we follow your logic, there are 150 world leading university in the UK, and these are in pair with Oxbridge? It is something of a puzzle. But wait, as a logical consequence, the UK have 150 world top 10 institutions! Because that’s what you are suggesting: " world leading suggests to me Oxbridge standard or better". Right. I knew I should have to apply to Anglia Ruskin or Oxford Brookes, as these are in the same cities as Cambridge and Oxford, and world leading institutions too. ROLF. Be as it may, the UK is a most happy country, as 94% of the students is attending to a world-leading university, and there hundreds of world-leading departments/faculties in the UK. I’m truly amazed, this is the educational heaven! :D</p>

<p>BTW, I give up. Your sparkling logic and brilliant proofs are truly amazing. The only thing I now regret is how proud I was when I received my offers from Oxbridge - despite it can be taken for certain that they are just two from the 150 world-leading British university. What a shame…</p>

[Dionysus58]

<p>I’m really having difficulty believing you’re a postgrad when you so frequently misquote me, aren’t postgrads supposed to be good at this sort of stuff? I hope you don’t make these mistakes in your thesis.</p>

<p>RAE clearly says “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”. It doesn’t say anything about there being 150 world leading universities in the UK.</p>

[searching182]

<p>As much as I appreciate all of your responses, I’m not so concerned with prestige… I was simply wondering how good UCL is for archaeology and how hard it is to get in</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@searching182

I was simply wondering how good UCL is for archaeology and how hard it is to get in

I sent you a PM.</p>

[EconomistF]

<p>

@IvyPBear

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>

<p>FYI, UCL is Goldman’s target for their IBD/S&T roles as much as Oxbridge/LSE are. The same applies to other banks like JPM, Citi and MS. In fact, the only bank that doesn’t recruit heavily from UCL for IBD/S&T is Deutsche Bank. Kids from there also get into the IMF, World Bank, etc. Fact. [url=<a href=“http://www.uclefs.com%5DThe”>http://www.uclefs.com]The</a> UCLU Economics and Finance Society<a href=“this%20is%20not%20the%20source,%20but%20some%20other%20info”>/url</a></p>

<p>As with McKinsey, the only real target in the UK is Oxford, probably like in the US, HYPS are. But McKinsey along with other big MCs (except BCG) do visit UCL for strat consultancy.</p>

<p>In short, top employers generally like UCL a lot.</p>

<p>UCL’s Law and Med are top-notch in Europe. Not behind Oxbridge. You will find lots of evidence on the internet. Don’t know anything about Harvard’s Law/Med recruitment though.</p>

[CarlsF]

<p>Whats UCL’s percent of financial aid?</p>