<p>Oh I see your point now. From what I hear, that is a myth. I know of people with Oxbridge offers for English/Law,etc and then Durham offers, and then people with Durham offers, and Oxbridge rejection, so I think its largely coincidental, or maybe down to personal prejudices rather than a department wide policy.</p>
<p>I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. It always baffles me when people hold St Andrews on a pedestal.</p>
<p>It baffles me how people hold the league tables as the holy grail. Based on an aggregate, we could say Durham is a better university than UCL and Warwick based on positions in the table but that would flawed.</p>
<p>The most successful people in their respective fields tend to be well educated who made the most of their college experience. Whether that be at Oxford or Bristol is largely irrelevant. You can tell people you went to Oxford for so long before your the sound of your voice starts to bore you.</p>
<p>I would wish HS students were allowed to enroll at short summer/spring schools at colleges of their choice before basing their future on what people or the papers say. What’s more fun - Cambridge and boat parties or Kings and London at your doorstep? Again, this is an example of ‘fit’.</p>
<p>Very true again. In my opinion that once you’re in a top 10 university or even top 20, it becomes more about the individual and what you achieve during your time at university. Its only Oxford or Cambridge, where your university can really give you an edge on your competition. Aside from that, its all down to you. I think that especially at undergrad there is no real difference between places like Warwick, UCL, Durham, St Andrews, Bristol and even LSE. At undergrad from my experiences, its only Oxbridge where the presence of tutorials are unique and an excellent tool for developing as an individual.</p>
<p>That’s true. Banking is one of those caterer paths were being from Oxford or Cambridge will get you looks everywhere but then put 20 of them on the a level playing field at internship level and the number of non-Oxbridge overachieving will outnumber the Oxbridge grads.</p>
<p>Some people don’t choose to apply to Oxbridge because it’s not suited to them. Similarly someone will be happy with any top 10 university knowing they’ll make their own path. I think the higher ranked universities have a huge number of students who chose the place based on prestige and rep. I cannot find a single econ student at LSE who likes the teaching or thinks it’s of a good standard.</p>
<p>Parts of your post I agree with PaulAllen but there was a lot of ill-informed nonsense there too. UCL’s School and Slavonic and East European Studies is one of the universities best assist, it is probably the best place in the world to study that region. Entry requirements have NOTHING to do with quality and everything to do with popularity; e.g. UCL History asks for higher grades than SSEES History because it gets more applicants, simple as that. The reason it gets more applicants is because SSEES history is very specialised, focusing as you’d expect on Russia and eastern Europe.</p>
<p>Where have you got that 85% figure from? I doubt that is true, it certainly isn’t for the majority of people I know. People choose where to study for all sorts of reasons, rarely is a universities reputation the deciding factor. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it does, in fact UCL in my opinion is better for undergraduate than Yale, Princeton, Penn, Dart and Brown. I know I’m likely to get flamed, this is a US forum after all - but really, there’s not much between any of them at UG level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they haven’t, don’t talk BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we’ve got to the crux of this, you’re a UCL student right? hence your aggressive desire to defend the university and your disgust when I claimed that Warwick was of comparable quality to UCL. How exactly do you know that? you seem to rate UCL highly, even higher than Yale and Princeton. In terms of international prestige/reputation/research, UCL is not a patch on Yale or even Princeton.</p>
<p>Ill informed nonsense? Similar to the sorts you have been spewing around as well, no? I remember reading something along the lines of a 3 tier system in the UK - Oxbridge first, then the London uni’s (of which you mentioned Imperial), then the rest. I am guessing you would include Kings and QMUL or Royal Holloway in that 2nd tier right?</p>
<p>I was an applicant to UCL in 2008. Its a matter of fact that the majority of the students I spoke to at the SSEES were there so because they wanted the UCL brand name but didn’t have the grades. It isnt too difficult to to economics at UCL and pick a SSEES module or any other module in the UoL system which permits it. You underestimate the fact that when people look to do a degree like history or economics, the place, rather than the school/dept within that university doesn’t make a difference. If I didn’t have the A*AA for economics at UCL, I would take the SSEES option asking for ABB.</p>
<p>If a course is not popular, I don’t see a university directing a large amount of resources into it, specialised or not. Students, at the end of the day are a line on the income statement of university finances. Then again, I am ill-informed after 2 weeks there rather than trawling through this forum for opinions.</p>
<p>85% - oh, just a summer as a UCAS assistant at my university showed that, in my department at least, 60-85% of students applied to Oxbridge. Its a well known fact that, for example at Warwick, the majority of students were either rejected from Oxbridge or LSE.</p>
<p>Better than Princeton, Penn (including Wharton) and Yale? Wow, do you understand how silly this sounds? My comment came from the prestige-whore angle, plus a whole list of variable likes job prospects, number of people at top grad (MBA/JD/MD) programmes. UCL doesn’t cut it.</p>
<p>You are mistaking statement for “UCL is a *****show” - its far from that.</p>
<p>BS about Durham rejecting kids who applied to Oxbridge? Do a little search on The Student Room and you’ll find a fair few. History again is one of those departments that has done this. Durham, Oxford and Cambridge use a GCSE ranking system which invariably means it will reject some oxbridge candidates based of that alone while Oxford has taken in people with AAB and no A*s at GCSE level.</p>
<p>I love the aggressive nature of the majority of your posts. I sense I hit a nerve with the UCL comments. Its okay, we can’t all get degree from the University of London Woxbridghum.</p>
<p>Have a nice day :)</p>
<p>EDIT: If we put the likes of Warwick/UCL on par, then is it fair to say Warwick is on par with the Yale’s and the Princeton’s. I bet as a UCL student, you are more than entitled to your opinion, be it biased or not. But please don’t go around saying a poster is ill-informed because it contradicts your experience or assumptions. I didn’t give an overly positive or negative image of the universities I listed in my prior post.</p>
<p>I don’t think he agrees that Warwick/Durham/UCL etc are on a par… probably sees UCL as peers to Imperial and LSE.</p>
<p>Before I come across as some sort of league table junky Dionysus, I can assure that me and SpawnofDescartes were not fuelling the prestige fire or by putting certain universities in the upper echelon of higher education. Simply, I was highlighting the the various pros and cons of each university based on experience. Since I am not familiar with the likes of Oxford or Cambridge, I didn’t not go in to list lengthy pros and cons.</p>
<p>I have family that went to UCL and I recommend it to students for a range of courses based on their preference. I will go as far as to say, personally, I prefer UCL over Warwick. I enjoyed the lectures which were far more relevant to the topic and provided sufficient context in stark contrast to the system at Warwick where the lectures and seminars were largely detached at times.</p>
<p>I for one am aware of certain universities and their prestige factor. It doesn’t take a degree to know that Harvard > LSE/UCL/Imperial/Warwick/Durham/Bristol/Bath blah blah. Reputation should be just ONE factor in considering a university. While you mention “rarely is reputation a deciding factor” - we are doing just that, addressing the issue of how Warwick or how UCL compare. Why is that again and again, countless students (and on this forum) chose a university based on reputation. Like I mentioned, my friends at LSE will rarely rave about the teaching quality in the econ department but the fact that they chose LSE over UCL or Bristol will probably convince you that reputation for the majority is the difference between going to a university you like vs. going to a university because employers see is as the breeding ground for a particular career path.</p>
<p>Your point about LSE Economics is on the money so to speak. From what I hear, the lecturers couldn’t care less, full of socially awkward internationals in seminars and poor support. However, they all say that they would choose LSE again, simply because of reputation and the hope that it’ll get them into IB.</p>
<p>I guess employers care less whether teaching is good and more about the 2.1/1st.</p>
<p>I have still met a number of non-LSE/Oxbridge grads in many IBD teams. I think these days, Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/Imperial/Durham/Warwick/Bristol/Bath/Nottingham/Kings etc will get you into the door, the rest is up to you. LSE is great on the CV but if you can’t size up a trade and have no risk appetite, your career on the trading floor will be short-lived.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do rate UCL highly but I am not bias, I am also defending Durham and St Andrews (and as you will see from previous posts, I am no fan if St A’s). I said UCL can match Yale and the rest of the Ivy League for undergraduate education, I did not mention research or prestige.</p>
<p>I don’t know who you spoke to but the vast majority of SSEES students would be insulted by your claim that it has somehow diluted UCLs prestige or that their degrees are not of the highest quality. I have never met anybody there who wasn’t passionate about their subject, indeed many of them consider themselves SSEES students first and UCL students second. I’m sure the majority would be appalled to hear you say they’re only there for the UCL brand name. SSEES courses are popular, they never fail to fill up (and entry reqs have risen four years in a row), their history course is just not as popular as mainstream history for obvious reasons. I’m very pleased UCL still considers it important to support small specialised departments like the SSEES, Scandinavian, Dutch and Hebrew - without them UCL would be immeasurably poorer.</p>
<p>You were privy to that information? I doubt that, it’s more likely you have assumed that because 60-85% of students applied to your department before the Oxbridge deadline they must have applied to Oxbridge too.</p>
<p>A little research on The Student Room? The opinions and stories of students who were rejected are not proof of anything. You are ill informed; you have made assumption after assumption based on little more than hearsay and crude interpretation.</p>
<p>@Dionysus58 I think that is debatable to be honest. I don’t think the London universities are particularly stronger than the other top UK universities for undergrad universities. I study Law at LSE which is ‘allegedly’ 7th in the world for law, yet I wouldn’t dare say the education is on par with Yale. It’s terrible and inspid. UCL is extremely strong across the board, but I personally don’t rate St Andrews, I would place Warwick and Durham above it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is taken from the student room and is obviously only one incident, but does support PaulAllen’s claim that applicants apply to the SEESS because it’s easier to get into, and ultimately still provides the UCL brand name. When people are pursuing elusive careers like banking and law, they often sacrifice the course they prefer for the prestige of a university.</p>
<p>I would probably agree with your latter two points, except the penaultmate lines.</p>
<p>No, that comment does not support PaulAllen’s assertion at all. All it says is that SSEES History is easier to get onto and that one receives the same degree (title) at the end, and this is true. For all we know that person chose SSEES history because he was more interested in it, he doesn’t say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it difficult that a number of ‘good’ British universities can match Ivies. Why do I say this? Well, undergraduate education hinges on the quality of the university, which in itself entails research credentials, job placement and graduate study opportunities.</p>
<p>Yale has an endowment of close to $19bn, which means the departments are stacked with great academics. UCL has an endowment of £72mn which no doubt also had great academics. But we students take university as a package. Hence, Ivies have vastly superior careers advisers and the overall flexibility of having great departments across the college give you a well rounded education. Take a recent example of Warwick, during my year there, the sociology department dropped close to ten modules because of lack of funding and teaching bandwidth. It is still a great university but our endowments do not even come closer to theirs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would take a bet with any admissions officer, and you, to say that a good proportion of candidates sending in early applications to the likes of UCL, Durham, Warwick, St A will also be applying to Oxford/Cambridge. Assumptions? Don’t universities make assumptions and give out X% more offers than places knowing the candidate is well placed to get an offer somewhere else. Do you not think that a Oxbridge educated professor at UCL will see an excellent application, make that student and offer and also be sure that he/she will get an interview at Oxbridge? Its a very easy assumption to make. Its not as if I am assuming this based on some complicated formula. It would be safe to assume that someone who sent their application on the 1st of October with 3B’s predicted did not apply to Oxbridge. Why else do these universities have the Oxbridge-Reject stigma? It hasn’t been conjured from pure speculation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this amusing and rather ignorant on your part. I gave detailed feedback on universities based on experience, not hearsay and crude interpretation. Its nice that you keep thinking that because maybe it will go some way to proving your three tier system where the ‘London universities’ are second tier and the rest below. Its also funny how the opinions and stories of students who were rejected are not proof. Great, what shall we use as proof then? Personal experience speaks volumes in comparison to what forum posts tell you. After all, your regard for UCL stems from personal experience, no?</p>
<p>Conflation of Dionysus Thesis: UCL educations is at least equal to and most likely greater than Yale/Princeton/Dartmouth e.t.c</p>
<p>What I would not hear from Brits/People who went to british schools</p>
<p>I still have not figured out why UCL does not currently produce world quality scientists despite their extremely intense undergrad education</p>
<p>PaulAllens statements are pretty mature. Warwick/UCL are basically the same domestically. I lived and worked in the UK and these schools were nothing special and there are no significant differences in both. All the discussion about international prestige are moot anyways since it has no direct impact on most people except those who want to stroke their ego. Warwick and UCL are gonna get the same jobs domestically though Penn/Brown/dartmouth et al smash them on to smithereens on a comparative basis. The firms/positions that people from Dartmouth/UPenn get in the united states cannot be accessed by UCL grads in the UK they are exclusively for oxbridge students.</p>
<p>But who cares- International rankings are awesome even though Elite firms will not touch me with a ten foot pole. I can still build up my self-esteem by staring at world rankings and international reputation.</p>