<p>I agree with Noldo. I would have ranked it higher. I always thought Bristil was higher than nothingham personaly. This game is fun. So LSE = Chicago?</p>
<p>I'd say Edinburgh = Bristol > USC = Nottingham</p>
<p>I'd have said from a British prospective:</p>
<ol>
<li>Bristol</li>
<li>Edinburgh</li>
<li>Nottingham</li>
</ol>
<p>Although it varies for different subjects and international reputations differ from national reputations.</p>
<p>Although this isn't the point of this thread.</p>
<p>It's not the point of the tread but I guess the question has been answeared by a good few people and Imperial seems to be the general recommendation.</p>
<p>How about costs?</p>
<p>Imperial = 60,000 US$ per year
USC= 40,000 per year (dean's scholarship)</p>
<p>what do you guys think?</p>
<p>Imperial = 60,000!!!</p>
<p>Wow!!!!!! I forgot Science/engeneering related subjects cost so much more for internationals!! Is this factoring in cost of living?</p>
<p>I think that must be factoring in cost of living -- as far as I know, international fees in the UK hover around ?10,000/year, which is still rather less than $60,000.</p>
<p>Yeah, Imperial is particularly expensive</p>
<p>Total cost = tuition + living cost = (18,500+13,000)pound = 31,500 pound
= 60,000 US dollar
Worth it??</p>
<p>I checked this up for UCL and the had living costs as 210 pounds/week. And considering that terms are only for 32 weeks in a year, 6720 pounds. I'm pretty sure UK universities are cheaper.</p>
<p>I live in London and including accommodation must spend about ?270 pounds (150 for my LSE dorm)</p>
<p>erm...Edinburgh is in no way better than Bristol and Nottingham.</p>
<p>both are vastly superior. Edinburghs only attraction is that it has small amount of states school people, its ancient AND its a party place.</p>
<p>Bristol and Nottingham are equals for the big subjects (eg Economics, Law)....the choice depends on where you want to study more..a campus in a city...or a city ...no campus (bristol). </p>
<p>Essentially, Edinburgh is poor mans Bristol (also has high amounts of private schooled people).</p>
<p>Is USC that bad, really? I thought it was top-notch and is one of my top choices for grad school, because of football, girls, Los Angeles and especially the alum network... I don't know :-(.</p>
<p>In imperial, or UK universities in general, the curriculum is very intensive, and you can graduate as a master in 4 years. However, in US, you will only be a bachelor after 4 years of study. This will probably affect employability as employer definitely like a master over a bachelor.</p>
<p>For engineering, imperial college is definitely better, and recently, in UK, there is a shortage in workforce in science, engineering related field, so it would be easier for internationals to get a job than before.</p>
<p>However, I still have a question. I received the offer from Imperial to study civil engineering, but is it possible to transfer to other courses like electrical engineering?</p>
<p>I got offers from LSE and Imperial n got admitted by Northwestern and Duke. Though UK and US had a very different system in education, still found it really difficult to decide. I would focus in the academic area of Maths n Finance but also would like to try other subjects before I go with my majors. Really confused. Shall appreciate your opinion.</p>
<p>Imperial college is definitely better, but as for 21th Engineer's post, it is true that employers like masters over bachelors, but generally since a masters in America takes more time to get, it is probably more promising than a masters from England. But, it also depends on the college. I think as some previous posters stated, caltech v. oxford or caltech v. cambridge are indeed difficult decisions, but I would vote in favor of caltech. Why? I really can't give a satisfactory explanation without typing fourty pages, but in sciences and in the world of academia, caltech has a much more rigorous program. It is, after all, called the "academic bootcamp." Not to mention, I've heard the greatest professor alive today, Edward Witten, is known to teach their for weeks at a time every so often when he's not in his cozy little office on Einstein drive.</p>
<p>nyjunior, you don’t have to compare masters from England with masters from America, because master from England will seek employment in England and will not compete with masters from America. </p>
<p>I think Caltech has higher selectivity than Imperial. I mean it is easier to get into Imperial than Caltech.</p>
<p>Ive got some advice from a guy in Princeton about USC vs Imperial, and it is very helpful. worth to read it. </p>
<p>I'll try my best to address some of your concerns regarding USC/Imperial.
You can more or less trust what I have to say about USC and everything
related to the United States; however as I'm not familiar with the system in the United Kingdom, you should take my words about Imperial/the UK with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>In the paragraphs below, I will try to present only objective facts. I do
not want to make a value judgment as to which school is better - that
decision should be yours.</p>
<p>Now how does USC compare to Imperial? If I'm not mistaken, Imperial is only
a science/tech college (you will have to do this research on your own) - whereas USC offers the full range of majors, from the traditional liberal arts, engineering, to some of the more vocational training in business, media/communications and architecture (which is expected as it has the responsibility to train the residents of Los Angeles for life in a busy city)I can't emphasize enough how important it is for you to select a
school that offers the full range of possible majors, as as I said, you will very likely change your mind about what you want to do during your first two years in college</p>
<p>To debunk the myth about ranking: USC is a highly ranked school in the
United States. The reason it doesn't have a high international ranking is
because it doesn't have 3 dozens professors holding Nobel prizes or graduate
departments with twelve hundred post-docs producing three stories worth of papers every year. Now what does that mean for you? As far as I understand,
the fact that USC is thought by the TIMES to rank 101 whereas Imperial is
ranked 9 doesn't make it any different for you to get an engineering
training at USC or at Imperial. All engineering students will be required to
take the core courses in Math, Physics and Chemistry as follows:</p>
<p>Math: Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, Ordinary Differential
Equations</p>
<p>Physics: Newtonian mechanics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics and Wave
Optics</p>
<p>Chemistry: General Chemistry and Organic Chemistry</p>
<p>Since those are very basic courses that are offered in a standardized way at every school around the world, you don't have to learn it from a Nobel
laureate in order to learn it well. (If you still don't believe me, I'd have to disclose the sad fact that Multivar Calc, Linear Alg, General Physics and General Chemistry are in fact taught by post-docs and lecturers at Princeton. Full-ranked tenured professors don't teach those courses.</p>
<p>Now what will probably matter is later in your college career (probably in your third or fourth year), when course materials get more technical and you need access to outstanding lab facilities and faculty - then there is some probability that you will find those more easily at a higher ranked
university than a lower ranked university. However I tend to be skeptical of all rankings, and I think you should also bear this in mind, that: (A) No ranking is perfect - each is biased towards the population it would like to represent
(for instance, the TIMES is based in the UK - can you think of a
reason why it might have a motivation to rank Imperial higher?) and (B)
factors considered by ranking may not actually be helpful to your success
(for instance, why does the TIMES rank MIT higher than Princeton when most
Americans prefer a Princeton undergrad education to an MIT undergrad
education? The TIMES uses peer review and number of Nobel laureates, which,
to be honest, is irrelevant for most purposes. It has been seven months
since I came to Princeton and I have never personally met any Nobel laureate
professor here.) and (C) what does it mean to rank first? (It could mean
that (i) the school is good, or (ii) the school is cut-throat competitive
(as in the Math/Physics departments at Princeton)) I believe most people
do not understand the reductive nature of rankings. There are a lot of
factors at play, and I don't think numbers can capture that whole picture.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Employability: the government of the United States also offers one year
of Optional Practical Training after you complete your college coursework.
After that you may apply for an H1B visa which allows you to stay in the
United States for 6 more years, during which you may apply for residency.
You will have to do your own research for immigration policies of the United
Kingdom as I am unfamiliar with their practices.</p></li>
<li><p>Affordability: You will need to gather all the objective facts about both school and ask: (1) is Imperial superior to USC academic wise? And (2) if it is, is that difference worth a $30k price tag? (Personally I don't think so.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For instance, last year I was admitted to Ivy Leaguer Cornell which didn't
give me any money, and towny unknown Oberlin College which gave me a full
package. Suppose I was not admitted to Princeton, would I pay the $40,000
difference to get an Ivy League education over Oberlin College? Will Cornell
give me so much more an edge that an extra $160,000 cannot make up for it? I don't think so.) However you should make your own decision about what you think is best for you.</p>
<p>I guess it really depends on how much he wants to do engeneering. If he is dead set on it Imperial is the best choise as it specialises in this area. While if he is not certain then he should go for a liberal arts school. </p>
<p>Oberlin is not that much of a towny school. Its a very respectede liberal arts college.</p>
<p>21th Engineer,</p>
<p>You have a tough decision to make. I personally would pick USC because of the cost difference. Engineers don't make that much money; they have relatively high starting one but the yearly increase after that sucks. It will take years to get those money back. Imperial has great reputation in UK but it's only good if it does get you a job. I don't know the immigration situation at UK so I can't comment on this. USC admittedly can't compare Imperial in prestige but getting job in the US is probably easier, based on what you wrote. The only thing is what if you can't get a job in either places and have to go back to Japan. Then I don't know if USC is enough to get you a job. Are Japanese companies prestige whores and reluctant to hire grads coming back from foreign countries unless they are from well-recognized U??</p>
<p>Also, isn't UK program 3-yr? If so, the cost difference would be less since USC is 4-yr.</p>
<p>engineering courses are usually 4 years long in the UK.</p>