University of London comparison

Does anyone have any opinion regarding The University of London External programs with the US regionally accredited Universities.
Is it considered Ivy league/top tier,second top tier, middle tier or lower tier divison?

I also wonder how tough is the exam and how's the exam looks like?
compare with Heriott-watt MBA which is more prestigious? and which is tougher in term of the exam ?
Also compared with The Australian standard universities which is tougher?

Thanks
Susan

 

I think it is safe to say that London is considered more prestigious. But in the MBA world, Heriot-Watt has vastly more students and alumni in the US and Canada, simply because the program has been very actively marketed (by my colleagues and me, 1991-1998; by Financial Times since) in the US, which means, for instance, students and alumni in more than 70% of the Fortune 100 companies.

As for exams, both universities use the British approach to exams, involving external examiners. This means that professors at other universities read (and score) the Heriot-Watt and the London exams, to be sure that the level of difficulty (and content) is comparable to their own schools. Theoretically this suggests that, for instance, MBA exams in economics will be of comparable content and difficulty at any of the dozens of Royal Chartered British universities.

John Bear

 

The university of London is composed of various colleges. All are excellent but they are definetly not equal... you would need to examine the college to ascertain whether it is top tier or second tier.

Standards are very high.

Regarding comparison with HW, it depends what college you are referring to but I will assume you are looking at the distance learning programs. The UoL DL MBA is offered via Royal Holloway... a college which compares rather equally with HW (I disagree with the good Dr. Bear that a Royal Holloway MBA is more prestigious than a HW). The UoL degree will have "external programme" on it, a factor which bothers some people (wouldn't bother me, personally).

HW's advantages are that is offers various specialisms, has a huge student body and have a better DL pedagogy.

UoLs advantages are that they offer a thesis option and a single specialisation in international business.

Both offer extremely difficult examinations.

Both the UK and Australia have high standards which obviously vary somewhat depending upon the program and school.

 

In the 2000 (London) Times "Good Universities Guide" (similar to US News & World Reports), Royal Holloway ranked 24, Heriot-Watt, 47, out of 97. I guess using the US News analogy, Royal Holloway would be a first tier school, while Heriot-Watt, would be in the second tier.

University of London is considered a world-class university, and its London Business School is considered one of the very best. While Royal Holloway does not match the prestige of London Buisness School, having London U. on your resume should be impressive to anyone who knows about such things. You may want to reference a recent thread concerning how to list degress on a resume from universities with multiple schools/divisons. IMHO, I would list the degree as University of London and leave it at that. Of course if the degree were from London Business School, I would most certainly add that moniker along side of London U!

Regards,

Jeffrey

 

The graduate business schools of the two Universities are usually more closely aligned (i.e. the Economist ranks EBS in the top tier).

LBS is one of the finest business schools around (i.e. think Harvard), however RH is definetly not LBS.

"Having London U on resume should be impressive to someone who knows"... someone who knows would ask what college you studied at for there is a helluva big difference between LBS and RH.

Only listing UoL is somewhat dishonest for you are trying to pass the degree off as being from the more well known LBS. Not exactly ethical IMO.

It is like this LBS is top 10... EBS and RH are top tier.

 

There may be a point to the previous comment , but I do not totally agree with the judgment call made by the above poster. I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong with listing on a resume a degree earned from London U. as being earned from London U. Resumes are, afterall, suppose to accurate and concise. Obtaining greater detail is the purpose of the interview.

One could otherwise argue that people should cite their degrees as being earned from "John Doe School of Computer Sciences, Jane Smith College of the State University of ________ at Central City." That, in my opinion, would be far too much information to list on a resume.

I feel that unless there is a specific reason (such as status) to get into such detail concerning the specific school or division a degree was earned from, such as would be the case of London Business School or Honor's College at an otherwise mediocore university, it is unnecessary to be so specific.

I recently read a resume from a person who earned a degree from State University of New York-Albany. He listed his degree as New York University at Albany. Now that is misleading!

Regards,

Jeffrey

 

You need to realize that the University of London is fundamentally different from US schools. What US University offers TWO different MBA degrees, from two different schools, of two different levels of quality? (MBA is just one example, the UoL offers other degrees from multiple schools). Therefore, unlike an American school where the name of the "college" is redundant (if you have an MBA from Harvard it is from the Harvard Business School) it is fundamental with the UoL. So why would someone leave fundamental knowledge off a resume... either out of ignorance or to mislead.

 

Like the USNews rankings, these are undergraduate rankings I believe. Considerable weight is given to variables that are of little relevance to distance education by adult learners at the graduate level. But to the extent that these kind of rankings help create the public perceptions of relative prestige, I guess that they are important.

On the graduate level, departmental prestige may be more important than institutional prestige, and departmental prestige is often a function of research strength. Of course that too may be of little relevance to a taught MBA program, and of even less relevance to an entirely examination-based program. But it is another imperfect indicator of relative prestige.

In the 1996 Research Assessments (the last whose results are available, a new 2001 assessment is apparently now underway), business and management at both Royal Holloway and Heriot Watt got grades of 3a on a scale of 5 (top) to 1 (bottom). I guess that translates to 'high-average'.
http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefc/rae96/inst_res/index.html

LBS got a 5*, indicating the handful of programs at the top of the 'five' class, which translates to 'world class', I guess.

 

Hello, there!

I would just like to add a little comment. If I understand correctly, London University was the popular name of University College London, the first college of the University of London. When other colleges were established, the whole institution eventually became to known as the University of London. Thus, if one wants to refer to the whole institution with all colleges, it should be addressed as University of London and not London University.

Best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Susan, I can't compare the University of London external program to other external programs, but i can compare the work to my internal degree work from U of Michigan (AB) and U of Florida (JD) and I can tell you that the London work is just as tough as what I had to prepare as an internal student at those schools. BTW I'm currently enrolled in one of the graduate programs at U of L, and it's tough enough that I'm not worried about what it will look like on my resume. I will be happy to have that problem.

 

Hi Karlos,
I don't think that there is any difference between Cambridge University and University of Cambridge. I believe that both London University and University of London are refering to the same university. If it had been in the US, the case will be different. University of Miami and Miami University are two different institutions.

Ike Okonkwo

 

Hello, Ike!

I don't understand it that way. London University was the popular name of University College London, the first college of the conglomerate. People used to call it London University to differentiate it from King's College, the second college.

Of course, people can understand you when you say London University. My point is that this is not the exact name of the university; it is University of London. If you check the physical certificates of this institution, you will see that they read "University of London" and not "London University". Again, colloquially, I guess London University is acceptable. Then again, I guess it might be better to say simply London.

Another example: I used to think that University of Harvard was the name of this famous Bostonian university, but it is not. It is Harvard University. In this sense, I suppose that the physical certificates of Harvard read "Harvard University" and not "University of Harvard". The same applies to "Cambridge University".

Best wishes,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Hello Folks, some good replies on this topic and alot that are more informative and accurate that what i think i could say.

But let me give my experience on this:

to answer your original question: it's a tough call between HW and London for the MBA. The good Dr Bear said about HW being recognised more worldwide, so the bottom line would come down to: where would you use the degree. If you think about after graduating from doing an MBA, what do you think would impress more (again depending on where you are: UK, US, AUS): An MBA from the U of London or from HW? Say it to yourself and see what you think.

The London MBA (and indeed any program offered through London, www.lon.ac.uk/external) is very rigrous because, as Dr Bear pointed out, the exams are assessed and marked the 'british' way (traditionally) meaning people from other unis look at them too. So for toughness (and keeping it traditional), London would be my choice for most.

Then again, there are so many approaches to an MBA that it's hard to discern between what's best. The safest thing to say is that both would be a good choice (from personal experience, the LLB Law Degree through London is very very hard, but also satisfies as a qualifying Law degree and is recognised throughout the world).

Bottom line, depends on where you would use the degree, but both are going institutions.

Cheers

 

Karlos:

For what it's worth, in actuality the physical certificates read Universitas Harvardiensis.

Gus Sainz

 

Which means "Go Yale!" in Latin. I'm sure of this.

Rich Douglas

 

Hello, Gus!

Yes, I remember that Steve mentioned something to that effect. I hope that there are at least some words in English on the physical certificates. Otherwise, this could be taken as a joke by people who don't know about it. Yes, I know that Latin used to be a very important language, but the clue word here is "used to", except perhaps with lawyers and religuous people.

I myself would be interested in an academic certificate from Harvard, it they ever offer one for a relative good price or with the possibility of transfering in. I hope that these ones are not in Latin, though.

Best wishes,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

First, Karlos---I have to disagree with you. No matter the origins, University of London is the same as London U., the latter being somewhat of a nickname. I am positive I read this in the (London) Times as well as on one of the University of London's websites.

Secondly, I recognize that there are many multi-campus universities (SUNY, Maryland, California, etc.) that treat each campus as an entity on its own. in fact, I'm sure most do.

There are conditional exceptions, however. CUNY, for example, has a duality. While CUNY has also differentiates its campuses (with a few exceptions) and US News ranks each "college" (Baruch, Brooklyn, City, Hunter, Queens, etc.) separately, CUNY tends to present itself (to a crtain extent) as an integrated/cohesive school system. The media tends to discuss CUNY as a whole, and policy is set by CUNY for all of its campuses. Students are allowed to cross-register and many (most?) of CUNY Graduate School's master's and doctorate programs are conferred by CUNY but administered at a branch campus.

It was my understanding that while UoL's campuses are likewise separate entities to a certain extent, the University is perceived even much more so as a cohesive whole than is CUNY. With that in mind, and I may be wrong about this, it just seemed valid to simply say that a degree was earned from University of London without specifying the college. I would say that just listing CUNY on a resume would be less legit. To simply list University of Maryland or University of Mass would even be worse.

Sorry for this incoherent post. I hope I made some sense. It is really hot and my air conditioner is on the fritz. (Okay, okay, that is not exactly the reason why my post is so poorly written. )

Regards,

Jeffrey

 

C

Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for your posting.

Of course, regardless of origin, London University is a colloquial name of the University of London. In a sense, London, UofL, or UoL are also colloquial names. My point is that the registered name, which means the one that appears on the physical certificates, is University of London and not another name. Although I haven't personally seen a University of London physical certificate, I have an E-mail from them backing up my assertion. I guess that this also means that no physical certificate with the name London University has ever been issued. Nonetheless, if you know otherwise, please let us know.

Regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Okay my two cents here. In my part of the world, Asia, where UoL programs are very very popular.

Traditional grads ( those that have 60,000 pounds to splurge- tuition and cost of living in London) would strongly emphasize their college in their resume/ conversation,
A typical resume would state..
.
Qualifications:-

LLB(2001)
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) or UCL etc then
University of London

They may even omit UoL totally and just list the college.

If you list solely UOL, your potential employers may presume that you are an external grad and if I actually pay 50,000 pounds more than the next chap I would definitely like to differiante my resume from his/hers.


Best Regards

Billy

 

Billy this is sort of OT, but can you list any message boards or newsgroups or similar things which cater to external u.o.l. students? also, could you discuss a little bit the popularity of uol in asia? thanks.