New York College European and American Education - NYC vs Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova - ASEM vs Aleksander Xhuvani Elbasan - UE vs University of New York Tirana - UNYT vs University of Malta

Side-by-side comparison from 66 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted

Quick verdict
Higher overall rating: Lusaka Apex Medical University - LAMU (4.50)
New York College European and American Education - NYC: wins 0/7 categories
Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova - ASEM: wins 0/7 categories
Aleksander Xhuvani Elbasan - UE: wins 0/7 categories
University of New York Tirana - UNYT: wins 3/7 categories
University of Malta: wins 2/7 categories
Collegium Civitas: wins 1/7 categories
Lusaka Apex Medical University - LAMU: wins 1/7 categories
Comparing
Best programme: Accounting
Best programme: Adult Nursing
Best programme: Informatics
Best programme: Commerce
Warsaw, Poland
4.30
Read more reviews
14 reviews
×
Best programme: International Relations
Best programme: BA International Relations and Diplomacy
Category ratings
Facilities
Not rated
4.00
3.33
3.67
4.31
Win
4.00
4.25
Location
Not rated
4.40
4.33
4.33
4.60
4.71
Win
4.25
Professors
Not rated
4.20
4.00
4.67
Win
4.44
4.21
4.25
Internationality
Not rated
3.20
3.33
4.67
Win
4.22
4.36
4.50
Student life
Not rated
3.80
3.33
4.00
4.06
3.93
5.00
Win
Value
Not rated
4.20
3.33
4.67
Win
4.28
4.00
4.50
Accommodation
Not rated
3.40
3.33
4.00
4.31
Win
3.36
3.50
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • +High-quality, multicultural education
  • +Excellent, experienced professors
  • +Strong business programs
  • +Engaging and relevant subject matter
  • +Supportive and clear teaching staff
  • +Well-structured and career-focused programs
  • +High-quality teaching and knowledgeable lecturers
  • +Excellent facilities and resources
  • +Strong integration of theory and practice
  • +Quality programs and knowledgeable, supportive professors
  • +Engaging faculty and staff
  • +Good learning environment and opportunities
  • +Expert, passionate professors and strong academic programs
  • +Supportive faculty and staff fostering intellectual curiosity
  • +Beautiful campus and enriching student life
  • +International environment and diverse student body
  • +Supportive staff and dedicated professors
  • +Small class sizes and engaging learning opportunities
  • +High quality education and focused, dedicated faculty
  • +Supportive and engaging learning atmosphere
  • +Promising infrastructure despite some limitations
Cons
  • -Outdated facilities and lack of modern amenities frustrate students.
  • -Inefficient administrative processes and poor communication cause significant problems.
  • -Overcrowded classrooms and a lack of individual attention detract from the learning experience.
  • -Inconvenient or unhelpful administrative and management issues.
  • -Outdated facilities and technology hinder the learning experience.
  • -Lack of clear communication and support from instructors or the institution.
  • -Administrative and management issues disrupt student progress and create confusion.
  • -Outdated facilities and a lack of necessary resources hinder learning.
  • -Unclear communication and a lack of support from staff are frustrating.
  • -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
  • -Outdated facilities and technology impede learning.
  • -High costs are perceived as poor value for the educational experience.
  • -Outdated facilities and poor maintenance are a consistent problem.
  • -Administrative and management issues create unnecessary frustrations for students.
  • -Lack of effective communication and student support is a recurring concern.
  • -Lack of communication and disregard for student concerns on crucial issues.
  • -Disappointing student experience and unfulfilled expectations.
  • -Administrative and management issues are a frequent source of frustration.
  • -Outdated facilities and a lack of necessary resources are commonly disliked.
  • -Teaching quality and course structure are often criticized.
Rating summary
What students say

This institution presents a uniform, middling performance across all evaluated aspects. With zero ratings in categories spanning facilities, professors, location, student life, accommodation, internationality, and value, there are no standout strengths or discernible weaknesses. The university's profile is entirely consistent, indicating an average experience in every surveyed area.

This institution demonstrates considerable strengths, particularly in its location, which earned a high rating of 4.4. Professors also received strong marks at 4.2. Conversely, areas for improvement are evident in accommodation and internationality, scoring 3.4 and 3.2 respectively. Overall, the university presents a solid, though not perfect, offering across various aspects of student experience.

This university garners high marks in several key areas, with location standing out as its strongest point at 4.33. Professors also receive a solid rating of 4. Areas such as facilities, student life, accommodation, internationality, and value all cluster around a moderate 3.33, indicating a generally consistent but not exceptional performance in these aspects.

This university is highly regarded, particularly excelling in its professors, internationality, and value, all receiving scores of 4.67. Student life, accommodation, and location also score well, with 4.33 to 4.0 ratings. The facilities represent the lowest-rated aspect at 3.67.

This university garners positive feedback across various aspects, with **Location** standing out as its strongest area, achieving a perfect 4.6 rating. **Student Life**, while still solid at 4.06, is the comparatively weakest, though still generally favorable. Other categories like Facilities, Professors, Accomodation, Internationality, and Value all fall within a strong mid-range, indicating a well-rounded experience for students.

This university receives strong marks, particularly for its **location** (4.7) and **internationality** (4.3). Areas like **facilities** and **value** also score well at 4.0. The **student life** rating is solid at 3.9. The **accommodation** category presents the weakest performance with a 3.3 rating, suggesting room for improvement in student housing.

This institution demonstrates notable strengths in **Student Life**, achieving a perfect score, and also excels in **Internationality** and **Value**, both rated at 4.5. Areas of solid performance include **Facilities**, **Professors**, and **Location**, all scoring 4.25. The lowest-rated aspect is **Accomodation**, with a score of 3.5, indicating room for improvement in this category.

Reviews summary
Highlights

With a single review, the feedback is overwhelmingly positive. The reviewer highlights the high quality of multicultural education and academic collaborations. Professors are described as excellent with practical experience.

University reviews are overwhelmingly positive (100%), with an average rating of 4.4/5. Students praise interesting subjects, clear teaching, and helpful professors. Some mention manageable workloads and relevant, well-structured programs.

With ~67% positive feedback and a 3.67 average rating, students highlight good lecturers and strong theory-practice integration. Facilities and academic staff are also praised. No negative reviews were provided.

All three reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4/5. Students highlight good programs, knowledgeable faculty, and a supportive learning environment. No negative feedback was received.

With an average rating of 4.08/5, ~97% of 36 reviews are positive. Students praise academic quality, supportive professors, and an attractive campus, while a small portion notes minor administrative delays.

University reviews are largely positive (approximately 93%), with students appreciating the international environment and supportive staff. A small portion (~7%) expressed dissatisfaction regarding a canceled graduation ceremony.

All four reviews are positive, averaging 4.5/5 stars. Students praise the high standard of education, quality training, and dedicated faculty. Minor infrastructure concerns, like a shortage of lecture halls, were noted.

Rating distribution
5★
0%
40%
0%
0%
11%
57%
50%
4★
100%
60%
67%
100%
86%
29%
50%
3★
0%
0%
33%
0%
3%
7%
0%
2★
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1★
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
Most useful review
Most liked

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

Nothing to show

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