Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman vs National Aviation University vs Institute of Ecology, Economics and Law vs National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy vs MIM Kyiv Business School - MIM

Side-by-side comparison from 16 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted

Quick verdict
Higher overall rating: MIM Kyiv Business School - MIM (4.70)
Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman: wins 0/6 categories
National Aviation University: wins 0/6 categories
Institute of Ecology, Economics and Law: wins 0/6 categories
National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy: wins 2/6 categories
MIM Kyiv Business School - MIM: wins 3/6 categories
Kyiv National Linguistic University: wins 1/6 categories
Bogomolets National Medical University - NMU: wins 0/6 categories
Comparing
Best programme: Economics
Best programme: MBA
Best programme: Accounting and Business Finance
Category ratings
Facilities
3.00
2.00
Not rated
4.00
5.00
Win
3.33
2.00
Location
4.00
3.00
Not rated
4.00
4.50
5.00
Win
4.33
Professors
4.00
2.00
Not rated
4.00
4.33
Win
3.67
2.33
Internationality
3.00
2.00
Not rated
3.00
4.67
4.67
2.67
Student life
4.50
2.00
Not rated
5.00
Win
4.67
4.33
3.33
Value
3.50
2.00
Not rated
5.00
Win
4.67
3.67
3.67
Accommodation
2.50
1.00
Not rated
3.00
4.67
Win
3.00
2.67
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • +Strong academic programs and supportive faculty.
  • +Positive student atmosphere and community.
  • +Opportunities for practical experience and international exchange.
  • +Excellent faculty and engaging teaching methods
  • +Valuable practical experience and career preparation
  • +Supportive learning environment and strong community

Nothing to show

  • +High academic standards and international focus
  • +Opportunities for practical learning and creativity
  • +Strong reputation and European standards
  • +Comprehensive business understanding and accessible teaching
  • +Experiential learning, mentorship, and community events
  • +Real-world application and career preparation
  • +Strong business and language programmes
  • +Effective learning and task completion
  • +Positive learning experience
  • +Expert instructors and engaging teaching methods.
  • +Relevant and practical curriculum with up-to-date content.
  • +Supportive learning environment and strong career services.
Cons
  • -Pervasive corruption and a focus on extracting money.
  • -Inadequate and unengaging teaching from unmotivated lecturers.
  • -Wasted time with little real value gained.
  • -Outdated facilities and equipment.
  • -Poor English proficiency among professors.

Nothing to show

  • -Administrative and management issues cause frequent problems.
  • -Outdated facilities and poor maintenance are major concerns.
  • -Unresponsive and unhelpful support staff are a recurring complaint.
  • -Poor administrative support and unclear communication are frequent complaints.
  • -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are significant drawbacks.
  • -The curriculum is often perceived as irrelevant or lacking practical application.
  • -Administrative & management issues are a recurring problem.
  • -Outdated facilities and lack of necessary resources are frustrating.
  • -Poor communication and a lack of support create a negative experience.
  • -Excessive workload and focus on written assignments over practical skills.
  • -Ineffective and demanding remote learning practices.
Rating summary
What students say

This institution demonstrates particular strengths in **Student Life**, receiving a high rating of 4.5. **Location** and **Professors** are also well-regarded, both scoring 4. **Accomodation** stands out as the weakest area, with a rating of 2.5. **Facilities**, **Internationality**, and **Value** fall within the mid-range of scores.

This institution's ratings present a mixed picture. Its strongest points are location, earning a respectable 3, suggesting good accessibility and surroundings. However, areas such as accommodation, professors, facilities, student life, and internationality all received a 2, indicating a need for significant improvement in these crucial aspects of the student experience. The value also received a 2, reflecting concerns about the return on investment.

Nothing to show

This institution excels particularly in areas like Student Life (4.6), Location (4.5), and Facilities (4.3), indicating a vibrant and well-situated campus environment. Conversely, Accomodation and Internationality received the lowest scores, both at 3. Despite these areas, Value stands out with a perfect 5, suggesting a strong return on investment. Professor ratings are a moderate 3.7.

This institution receives high marks across most categories, with Facilities standing out as its strongest area at a perfect 5. Student Life, Accomodation, Internationality, and Value are also exceptionally strong, each scoring 4.67. Professors represent the weakest area, though still solid at 4.33, with Location also performing well at 4.5.

Regarding university performance, the location received a perfect score, standing out as its strongest attribute. Conversely, accommodation was rated the lowest. Professors, student life, internationality, and value all garnered solid ratings, reflecting well on these aspects. Facilities also received a respectable, though mid-range, score.

This institution demonstrates a strong showing in its location, which received the highest rating. Conversely, its facilities are the weakest point, scoring significantly lower than other aspects. Student life and value also received favorable marks, while professors, accommodation, and internationality fall in the middle range.

Reviews summary
Highlights

With an average rating of 3.25/5, feedback is split evenly between positive and negative. Students praised good staff and interesting programs, while others cited corruption and unengaging teaching.

The single review indicates a highly negative experience. The reviewer cited old equipment not meeting program needs and professors with poor English proficiency, even in an English-taught program. This represented ~100% of feedback, resulting in a 1/5 average rating.

Nothing to show

With an average rating of 4.5/5, 100% of feedback is positive. Students praise educational quality, practical lessons, encouraged critical thinking, and opportunities for creativity.

Students highly praise the comprehensive curriculum and excellent teaching staff, finding instruction accessible and engaging. Experiential learning opportunities and supportive faculty are frequently highlighted. No negative feedback was provided.

Two out of three reviews are positive, contributing to an average rating of 4/5. Students praise the learning experience and curriculum, with minimal negative feedback.

With an average rating of 2/5, two out of three reviews are negative (~67%). Students report excessive assignments and a focus on online tasks over practical learning.

Rating distribution
5★
25%
0%
0%
50%
67%
33%
0%
4★
25%
0%
0%
50%
33%
33%
0%
3★
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
33%
2★
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
1★
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
Most useful review
Most liked

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Typical Post-Soviet medical university

A certain hierarchy reigns in the university in which professors and the dean’s office are considered gods, and students and laboratory assistants are secondary characters. Despite this, there are people that ready to teach and help you I consider the opportunity to become more independent as a plus in NMU. Many faculties and campuses can also be attributed to the merits of university. The complexity of learning unites students so that you can turn a blind eye to shortcomings…

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our Privacy Policy for more details.
Close