Are there any other 'prestigous' universities in the UK apart from from Oxbridge?

[mids2019]

Are there any other 'prestigous' universities in the UK apart from Oxbridge?

My daughter was watching some American teen thing yesterday on Netflix and there was girl who's entire future lay on getting into Yale and Ivy League entrance was the be all and end all for this particular group of teenagers.

I know the US has a different HE system and culture but do we still have similar views in the UK in 2022? If there are prestigious universities in the UK how would you define this prestige? If we only allow Oxbridge the prestige label does this mean anyone who wishes to go a prestigious university has one (or two) Oxbridge or busy type application experiences then that ship sails?

Or maybe prestige is an archaic class ridden concept that is fading this millennium?

I was drawn to one of the RG v other university discussions and it may appear that the RG is being used as an artificial label to convey prestige in an HE environment where competition for Oxbridge is more intense than ever.

Did you only happen to visit colleges on The Bailey - I'd agree that those give the impression of being extensions of public schools and house a lot of very wealthy / "posh" undergraduates.

The Hill colleges are more akin to halls of residence in other universities, whilst still managing to foster that "belonging to a community" that the collegiate system brings. There'll be a more even mix of private/state school pupils in these colleges.

In terms of teaching, it'll depend upon the subject. However, I think a lot of Durham applicants probably consider it for a range of factors (esp. sport) and not just the academic side.

I agree it's not for everyone though, especially those wanting an urban/city experience

From the most recent Sunday Times league table private school percentages. It’s likely to burst some of the narratives being pushed, and provide some hard evidence for others.

Durham. 38.4%

St Andrews 36.9%

Edinburgh 35.5%

Exeter 34.5%

Imperial 34.2%

UCL. 32.4%

Oxford 31.3%

LSE 30.4%

Cambridge 30%

Oxford Brookes 29.8%

Bristol 27.3%

Bath 27.1%

Newcastle 23.3%

Nottingham 19.8%

Warwick 19.3%

Loughborough 19.3%

Leeds 17.7%

Lowest pure state school intake , so not including grammar schools.

Queens 34.2%

Imperial 45.5%

Cambridge 48.5%

Durham 49.1%

LSE 51.4%

UCL 51.7%

Oxford 52.2%

Exeter 53.6%

Bath 56.2%

St Andrews 56.5%

Edinburgh 57.8%

no other below 60%

Exeter was literally the whitest university open day I've ever been to (and I've been to a lot now both with my own DC and others through work) and an extremely "independent school" biased crowd.

Coming from a city and a very ethnically diverse school It was quite astonishing once you twigged what the strangeness was.

But this table doesn't take away the fact that Durham has its fair share of private school students.

I'm not surprised about the statistics for the London universities but given the student population is mostly international, they haven't got many places to go round after that!

I would also say (and I am going to be flamed for this) that possibly more private school kids are getting the grades for UCL and Imperial and are also being encouraged and supported by their private schools to apply.

As for Durham, I have a Latvian friend who went there and felt like a fish out of water. She said it wasn't diverse at all and she preferred her post graduate experience at Leeds. Different strokes for different folks. It can't help having that extra layer of traditions with all the gown wearing etc. It's a pretty town though!

Remember too that lots of london kids don't want to go to london uni's as they want to try somewhere new and wouldn't be able to justify the cost of living out in london when they could stay at home which they don't want to do. We are londoners who don't know any kids who have stayed in london for undergrad although most come back and live at home for post grad.

We looked at a few different colleges. I think Grey and Collingwood were two we saw and a big one that looked like a stately home on the way back to the campus. They all had that boarding school vibe to me or at least how I imagine a boarding school to be. It suits some people but just not for us.
I don’t know what bubbles are supposed to being burst by the poster who cites the private school statistics but I find them appalling given only 7% students are privately educated.

The global rankings are largely research based as I understand it which isn't relevant for undergraduate studies.

Don’t be silly. Nearly 20% of 6th form students are in private schools. If you count every child who has had private schooling at some point, it would be even higher. The 7% figure is a misrepresentation often repeated by people with an axe to grind.

The UK has so many top notch universities to suit all interests, we can be proud. If people don’t get obsessed with the Oxbridge gate, which is outdated thinking, there are enough places at “prestigious” schools for all the DC who would thrive their with no need to differentiate between state and private.

Picking up on an interesting point there: sector switchers complicate things.

How does the system account for someone who was in private schools from 4-16 but then switched to a state sixth form? Do admissions tutors see the whole picture?

@user1465390476 it’s fine you can name me. @boys3 should be fairly simple to remember.

I was perhaps being a bit too diplomatic. Rather than narrative I should have used something more direct. Please forgive my previously more sensitive approach.

the issue - the bubble that needs to be burst - is that you and others at times post wild generalisations and statements that bear no relationship to published reality. Especially as the Higher Education Statistics Agency publishes loads of them in easily accessible formats. This is not to trivialise valid personal experiences but rather to remember the plural of anecdote isn’t data.

to be fair you also make some reasonable assertions as well. Your Durham comments are certainly not unreasonable for example. Another op’s Exeter observation is largely backed up by the facts, although there are nearly 30 unis even more white that Exeter.

however if people post inaccuracies expect it to be likely subject to further discussion. HESA’s actual data will undermine some of the sweeping statements, again most not made by you, about London’s student characteristics.

The London University stats might be drilled down further. Contrary to Toddlingturtle’s view, I think many London students do choose to stay in London. State school pupils do partly because it is cheaper to stay at home, and partly because some will come from backgrounds where it is not usual to leave home before you get married. Universities like Kings, Imperial and LSE have strong access schemes for pupils from London schools.

Private school pupils will because London Universities offer, in terms of education and prestige, a strong alternative to Oxbridge. DS did not get into Cambridge for economics. His obvious alternatives were Warwick, LSE and UCL. Ditto Imperial for those wanting to study STEM. Oddly those from outside London seem the most reluctant to consider London. If you want to run a car, or have an en-suite London is expensive. Londoners are often content that good public transport, an amazing cultural offering, a huge range of cuisines etc, more than compensate. London has a very high proportion of privately educated pupils, especially at secondary level. Over 50% in some boroughs. Of those from outside London it may be the more affluent private school pupils who are less concerned about the cost of living, and who, with a greater level of familiarity with London, more willing to consider University in the Capital. (DD has a number of friends in Bristol who have never been to London except on a school trip, so find it difficult to visualise it as a place to live and work.)

Interestingly London Universities seem good at attracting British students from ethnic minorities. Many from London (both private and state) but also from elsewhere. A friend of DS chose London in part because he grew up in the only Chinese family in a small Welsh Town. In London he was no longer in a minority.

It also overlooks the impact of overseas students. A high percentage, indeed the majority, at Imperial and LSE are from overseas. I believe that the internal concern is not about UK state/private but how to increase the number of applications from well qualified British students, especially those in the north. It is worth noting that UCL and Imperial offer generous bursaries.

Interesting thread. I was just wondering what peoples opinions are of Edinburgh as it's not been mentioned much and was definitely prestigious and the level below oxbridge in the late 90s when I was applying for uni and is somewhere my DC is strongly considering

I couldn’t remember your name. I was busy. Sorry

IME St. Andrews has a reputation only among a select group of Americans. They stand out there because it's a relatively small university.

In general, Americans who are aware of British universities know about UCL and consider it a good university. LSE is quite popular for post-graduate work. Imperial would be known amongst people in STEM.

International students are a whole kettle of fish because the fee structure effectively incentivises international recruitment.

Isn’t the 20% in sixth forms a red herring because the data is usually based on where a student is educated in GCSEs years. Hence the 7% statistic is the one which is applied.

But they won't touch anything below Top 100 in the WS rankings. In fact they apply more weight to those rankings than whether a uni is in the RG.

Irony of that is all the UK universities in the QS top 100 ARE in the RG! (except according to this thread, the prestigious St Andrews) so it's rather disingenuous of them to act like they don't care about the RG.

Yup, I agree. And the 7% figure is the one quoted in the most recent official government statistics too, which were updated last year. People who try to convince others that 20% is the correct figure mostly have a vested interest in claiming this.

Really @thing47 ?

You think it is more correct to look at a pool that includes reception pupils, than to look at the mix of state/private in the relevant cohort actually applying? 🤔

If an applicant applying from a private 6th form went to a state primary, shall we count them as a state school applicant?

As Mark Twain said: There lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.

I suppose if in upper sixth 20% of pupils are at fere paying schools (and huge nukmbers left school for apprenticeships at 16) it is probably fair enough to say 20% from fee paying schools and 80% from state schools. I don't really see how taking the figure at age 16 is clearer because then would you also take those who go to good state schools until age 11 so as to pass for state grammars at 11+ should also be included in either set of figures?

You'd be mad to turn down Imperial or LSE just to 'get out of London' for a few years

Someone who went to state schools from 11-16 and then private from 16-18 is primarily a state-educated pupil. 93% of DCs are state-educated under that definition, therefore only 7% are privately educated throughout their secondary education; the fact that a further 13% (roughly) go private from 16-18 does not, to me, fundamentally change that position. You are, of course, free to disagree but these are the figures which the government statisticians and most educational bodies use.

@Xenia, yes, it's a bit of a blunt instrument, to be fair, because so many DCs change schools at 16 – private, grammar, comprehensives, colleges all change their intakes to some degree, in some instances considerably. And of course in some parts of the country you have to move because the schools don't have Sixth Forms. Nevertheless I think if you spend up to 11 years in state education and only 2 in private, you are stretching the definition somewhat to claim you are privately educated. Yes, those last 2 years might be the most relevant in terms of your applications to university, but your educational experience has long since been formed.

It ranks quite highly in global rankings but the student satisfaction and teaching is actually pretty bad (according to one of my dc)!

If a student has been in a private sixth form for the last two years then that is relevant (where they were for their GCSEs is less relevant).

I don’t think that’s right. The data relates to their GCSE years. I think it’s because some parents send their kids to big state sixth forms after they’ve been privately educated during the school years. They wouldn’t count as state educated in the data.