De Montfort University - DMU vs Almaty Management University - ALMA vs Kazakh-British Technical University - KBTU vs Turan University vs Suleyman Demirel University
Side-by-side comparison from 140 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Supportive & engaging lecturers
- +Modern campus & excellent facilities
- +Welcoming & diverse student community
- +Experienced and engaging professors
- +Practical, hands-on learning opportunities
- +Strong academic foundation and competitive programming opportunities
Nothing to show
- +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
- -Poor academic quality and limited credit transferability.
- -Unresponsive and unconstructive faculty feedback.
- -Inefficient and problematic administrative processes.
- -Administrative and management issues are a frequent source of frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are a recurring complaint.
- -The curriculum is often perceived as irrelevant and poorly structured.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Inflexible policies and lack of support are problematic.
Nothing to show
- -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- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.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- -Outdated teaching methods and materials are a significant concern.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.
The university demonstrates impressive strengths, particularly in its **Location** (4.36) and **Student Life** (4.34). **Facilities** (4.33) and **Internationality** (4.31) also receive highly favorable scores. Among the rated aspects, **Professors** (4.09) present the relatively weakest area, though still well-regarded. **Accomodation** and **Value** are rated identically at 4.13.
Regarding university ratings, student life stands out as a significant strength, achieving a perfect score. Conversely, accommodation presents a notable weakness with a low rating. Other aspects like facilities, professors, and value are rated moderately. Location receives a strong positive score, while internationality is somewhat lower.
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.
Nothing to show
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.
With ~83% positive sentiment, students praise supportive and engaging lecturers, modern campus facilities, and a friendly, diverse community. A small amount of negative feedback cited issues with administrative processes and teacher responsiveness.
With one positive review and no negative feedback, the university receives an average rating of 3.5/5. This suggests a generally positive student experience, with ~50% of feedback being positive and ~0% negative.
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.
Nothing to show
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.
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
