Universidad Externado de Colombia - UEC vs Universidad de los Andes - UNIANDES vs Universidad del Rosario - UROSARIO vs Universidad Militar Nueva Granada - UMNG vs Universidad Colegio Mayor de Cundinamarca - UCMC
Side-by-side comparison from 105 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +High-quality, specialized programs
- +Excellent professors and diverse student body
- +Opportunities for international experience and professional growth
- +Rigorous, deep, and innovative academic programs with opportunities for interdisciplinary study.
- +Inspiring and experienced international faculty offering precise and relevant learning.
- +Stimulating learning environments with extensive campus facilities and a strong sense of community.
- +Innovative programs with practical application and real-world projects
- +Supportive and knowledgeable professors dedicated to student growth
- +Comprehensive and ethical education fostering personal and professional development
- +Excellent faculty and academic level
- +Relevant and practical learning experiences
- +Attractive and accessible campus locations
- +Expert faculty and hands-on learning
- +Diverse and in-demand programs
- +Convenient campus access
- +Strong social and community focus
- +Early patient contact and practical skill development
- +Student voice and equitable treatment
Nothing to show
- -Administrative and management issues are a recurring frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and poor maintenance are frequently criticized.
- -Lack of support and unclear communication contribute to student dissatisfaction.
- -Poor communication and unclear expectations from staff.
- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities.
- -Ineffective teaching methods and lack of academic support.
- -Inefficient administrative and communication issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of resources hinder learning.
- -Poor quality of teaching and curriculum development is a significant concern.
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment hinder the learning experience.
- -Lack of effective teaching and student support is a common complaint.
- -Administrative and management issues are frequently cited.
- -Outdated facilities and technology are a common complaint.
- -Lack of support and unclear expectations contribute to dissatisfaction.
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of essential resources are a major concern.
- -Communication and organization are frequently criticized as poor.
Nothing to show
This institution demonstrates very strong performance, with its highest marks awarded to Professors (4.69) and its Facilities and Value (both 4.62). Location and Student Life also received excellent scores (4.54). The area with the lowest rating, though still respectable, is Internationality (4.31), followed closely by Accomodation (4.42).
This institution receives high marks overall, with its **Facilities** standing out as the strongest area at 4.69. Professors are also highly rated (4.52), alongside a strong showing for Internationality (4.43) and Value (4.33). Student Life scores well at 4.31. The weakest, though still solid, areas are Location (4.17) and Accomodation (4.05).
An overview of the university's ratings reveals a mixed but generally positive picture. Professors and student life emerge as the strongest areas, both receiving high marks. Internationality and value are also rated very favorably. Facilities, location, and accommodation, while still respectable, represent the weaker aspects of the university's offerings, scoring lower than other categories.
This institution receives excellent feedback, with its **Internationality rating standing out at a perfect 5**. Facilities, Professors, Student Life, and Accomodation all scored a solid 4, indicating strong overall offerings. Location is also a notable strength at 4.5. The Value rating is also good at 4. While no areas are weak, the strongest performing category is clearly Internationality.
This institution demonstrates a notable strength in the quality of its professors, receiving a perfect score. Conversely, its location received no rating, indicating a potential area for improvement or a lack of data. Other aspects like facilities, student life, and accommodation were moderately rated, suggesting a generally satisfactory experience. Internationality scores were lower, and value for money was rated well.
Overall, the university receives commendable ratings. Its strongest areas are Facilities and Professors, both scoring 4.5 and 4.625 respectively, closely followed by Location and Value. Student Life and Accomodation are rated well at 4. The university's weakest area is Internationality, with a score of 3.875, though this still indicates a generally positive reception.
Nothing to show
With a 4.61 average rating, students praise its quality programs, excellent facilities, and international opportunities for professional growth. No negative feedback was recorded among the 18 reviews.
With 46 out of 47 reviews being positive, students praise enriching academic opportunities like double majors and innovative teaching methods such as PBL. The university is lauded as number one in Colombia for its rigorous structure and comprehensive curriculum.
With ~100% positive feedback and an average of 4.54/5 stars, reviews highlight an innovative and comprehensive education. Students appreciate knowledgeable professors, practical projects, and opportunities for growth and international experiences.
All five reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.4/5 stars. Students highlight excellent professors, a strong academic level, and appealing campuses. One review mentioned administrative improvements are needed.
With an average rating of 5/5, all feedback is positive. Students praise the excellent faculty, good clinical sites, and the seamless integration of theory and practice. Accessibility via public transport or car is also highlighted.
All 9 reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.56/5. Students highlight meaningful experiences, practical patient contact, and a strong social focus. Some mention timetable distribution issues.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show