De Montfort University - DMU vs Kazakh-British Technical University - KBTU vs Satbayev University vs Suleyman Demirel University vs Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University
Side-by-side comparison from 138 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Engaging professors with subject passion and practical teaching
- +Strong academic quality and research opportunities
- +Supportive learning environment with industry connections and extracurriculars
- +Strong academic foundation and competitive programming opportunities
- +Strong academic programs and focus on practical skills
- +International collaboration and exchange opportunities
- +Opportunities for in-demand professions and research
- +Excellent campus facilities and modern learning environments
- +Supportive and dedicated staff/faculty with engaging teaching
- +Strong career support and employment opportunities
Nothing to show
- +Strong academic programs and experienced faculty
- +Extensive program variety and robust infrastructure
- +Valuable research opportunities and international collaboration
Nothing to show
- -Poor academic quality and lack of progression to higher education.
- -Unresponsive and unhelpful faculty, with vague or harsh feedback.
- -Technical issues with submitting work.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Inflexible policies and lack of support are problematic.
- -Excessive administrative burdens and poor management are prevalent.
- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities are a significant drawback.
- -Course content and teaching methods are often perceived as irrelevant or ineffective.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Lack of support and unclear communication from staff are problems.
Nothing to show
- -Outdated teaching methods and materials are a significant concern.
- -Students are frustrated with administrative and management issues.
- -Lack of modern facilities and resources hinders the learning experience.
Nothing to show
With a generally positive evaluation, this university excels in its **Location** (4.35) and **Student Life** (4.33). **Facilities** also received a high score (4.32), closely followed by **Internationality** (4.30). While **Accomodation** (4.13) and **Value** (4.12) are still solid, **Professors** (4.07) represent the lowest-rated aspect among the surveyed categories.
This institution achieves outstanding marks across nearly all aspects, with a perfect score in **Facilities** setting it apart. Student life, professors, location, accommodation, and internationality are all highly rated at 4.5. The university also presents a strong **Value** proposition at the same mark. With no significantly weak areas identified, the ratings paint a picture of a well-rounded and desirable educational environment.
Overall, this institution receives excellent marks, with a perfect score in Facilities, Professors, Location, Student Life, and Internationality, indicating a comprehensive and well-rounded experience. Accommodations represent the sole area for potential improvement, scoring a respectable but lower 4 out of 5. The university also scores a perfect 5 for Value, suggesting a strong return on investment for students.
Overall, the university receives solid ratings across most aspects, with professors and location being standout strengths. Student life and value for money also perform well. However, accommodation and internationality present areas for improvement, receiving the lowest scores in the survey. Facilities are rated moderately.
Nothing to show
The institution receives particularly strong marks for its **location**, scoring a perfect 5. Student life is also highly regarded at 4.25, closely followed by the quality of professors at 4. Conversely, the university's **accommodation** stands out as a weaker area with a rating of 3, along with its facilities at 3.5. Internationality is moderately rated at 3.25, and the overall value is considered good at 4.
Nothing to show
~82% of reviews are positive, highlighting excellent academic quality, engaging professors, and great facilities. A small amount of negative feedback, around 3%, mentions challenges with accessibility and feedback quality for some courses.
With an average rating of 4/5 from two reviews, feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Students highlight strong programming foundations and active participation in competitive olympiads. No negative feedback was received.
With one review and an average rating of 5/5, this university is highly regarded. The feedback highlights excellent educational programs and international opportunities. Negative feedback is negligible, representing 0%.
The university receives overwhelmingly positive feedback, with ~81% of 64 reviews rating it 4-5 stars. Students praise excellent campus facilities and supportive staff. There are no negative reviews.
Nothing to show
With an average rating of 3.75/5, ~75% of reviews are positive, highlighting strong academics, supportive faculty, and good research. ~25% of feedback mentions a traditional learning approach.
Nothing to show
Regrettably, I cannot offer a recommendation for Comic and Concept art due to the following reasons: Firstly, the accessibility of the teachers proved to be quite challenging as they were unresponsive to multiple email attempts throughout the entire year. Moreover, the feedback provided was often overly vague and lacked constructive criticism, occasionally even being unnecessarily harsh. In some instances, no feedback was given at all. Submitting work was frequently an arduous task, as specific file formats were required that were incompatible with the content, such as demanding PDFs for documents that couldn't be formatted accordingly and were subsequently rejected. Furthermore, the lessons themselves were lacking in quality. Some lecturers would digress into unrelated topics, consuming valuable class time. The teaching approach was disappointingly minimal, with students being assigned tasks without any guidance or instructional techniques provided. If feedback was given, it was generally unhelpfully brief, merely stating that improvements were needed. The learning materials provided during the lessons were also subpar. Often, we were presented with pre-recorded 10-minute videos and expected to navigate our own way through the material. This lack of effort on the part of the lecturers was unfair and disheartening, making it challenging for students to invest their own efforts. The workload imposed on students was excessive and overwhelming, leading to the majority falling behind. Consequently, many students experienced a negative impact on their mental well-being, ultimately resulting in some dropping out. Additionally, the university failed to provide necessary information about the course, leaving students to rely on each other for essential details. Timetables and key information, including student cards, were significantly delayed without any valid explanation. Technological tools such as email, Blackboard, Teams, and attendance systems frequently malfunctioned, causing further frustration and hindrance to the learning experience. Tragically, instances of bullying were pervasive both within the classroom and online, including incidents targeting vulnerable individuals. Despite reporting these matters to the course leader, no action could be taken without the full names of the involved students, which was a requirement I couldn't fulfill. Regrettably, when I brought these concerns to the attention of the class representatives, they chose to ignore my pleas for assistance. Lastly, living in Leicester City proved to be unsafe, with prevalent cases of sexual harassment, homophobic and transphobic threats. Disturbingly, both the police and the university failed to take any meaningful action in response to these issues.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
