Universidad de Huelva vs Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences - HSRW vs Universidad Galileo - Galileo vs University of Algiers 2 - Abou EL Kacem Saâdallah vs State University Of Surabaya - UNESA
Side-by-side comparison from 38 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Welcoming and accessible environment
- +Attentive and close teaching staff
- +Good facilities and resources
- +engaging teaching connecting theory to practice
- +multicultural and diverse student environment
- +well-organized campus and supportive services
- +Engaging curriculum with practical, real-world applications.
- +Knowledgeable faculty and supportive learning environment.
- +Flexibility and technology focus for working professionals.
- +Diverse and comprehensive academic programs
- +Supportive and involved faculty
- +Rich cultural and historical campus environment
- +Accessible education and personalized course guidance
- +Supportive environment with caring professors and engaging teaching methods
- +Opportunities for extracurricular activities and hands-on experience
- +Excellent teaching quality and knowledgeable lecturers.
- +Positive impact on emotional, spiritual, and academic growth.
- +Serene environment and modern facilities.
- +Practical skills & relevant coursework
- +Diverse and expert faculty
- -Outdated and insufficient facilities for sports and general use.
- -Poor teaching quality due to language barriers and ineffective delivery.
- -Lack of basic amenities like heating and inadequate organizational structure.
- -Difficulty obtaining thesis assistance and timely degree completion.
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of resources hinder learning.
- -Poor communication and lack of support from staff are common complaints.
- -Poor communication between students and administration.
- -Outdated facilities and technology are a persistent problem.
- -Inefficient administrative processes create significant frustration.
- -Lack of clear communication and transparency is a recurring concern.
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are a constant problem.
- -There are frequent complaints about poor communication and lack of support.
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and inadequate resources hinder learning.
- -Lack of clear communication and support leads to confusion.
This institution demonstrates a solid average across several aspects, with its strongest area being **Professors**, earning a respectable 3.75. Areas such as Facilities, Accomodation, and Internationality represent the weakest points, all receiving a rating of 3. Location, Student Life, and Value fall within a middle tier, indicating moderate satisfaction.
Internationality stands out as the university's strongest attribute, earning a high rating. Conversely, professors, location, and value are areas receiving the lowest scores. Other aspects like facilities, student life, and accommodation fall within a moderate range, suggesting a generally satisfactory experience with distinct strengths and areas for improvement.
This institution receives excellent marks for its **location (5/5)** and **value (4.67/5)**, indicating significant strengths in these areas. Facilities are also well-regarded at **4/5**. Areas for potential improvement include student life and accommodation, both scoring **3.33/5**, and professors and internationality, which received a **3.67/5**.
This institution performs strongest in its academic offerings and international appeal. Professors receive an impressive average rating of 4.17, and the university also scores well for its internationality (3.33) and value (3.5). Conversely, areas such as accommodation and location present opportunities for improvement, with ratings of 2.5 and 2.67 respectively. Facilities and student life are rated moderately, around 2.83.
With a robust average score, the university demonstrates particular strengths in **Student Life** (4.25) and **Location** (4). Ratings for **Accomodation**, **Internationality**, and **Professors** are also solid at 3.75. **Value** is well-regarded at 4. The **Facilities** category, while still decent, received the lowest score at 3.25.
This institution demonstrates notable strengths in several key areas. Value for money stands out with a top rating, closely followed by excellent Facilities, Professors, Student Life, and Internationality, all receiving high marks. Areas performing less strongly include Accomodation, which received a lower score compared to the others. Location also registered as a solid, though not outstanding, aspect of the university experience.
Performance across surveyed categories reveals a mixed yet generally positive university profile. The institution excels significantly in **Professors** and **Location**, both receiving perfect scores. Conversely, **Facilities** and **Accomodation** are identified as the weakest areas, each scoring a moderate 3 out of 5. Student life and internationality both garnered solid ratings, suggesting good engagement and a diverse campus environment, with value also being well-received.
About 75% of reviews are positive, highlighting a welcoming atmosphere, good services, and attentive staff. Around 25% of feedback mentioned poor facilities and organization issues. The average rating is 3.5/5.
With a 3.92 average rating from 13 reviews, ~77% are positive, highlighting engaging teaching and a supportive, diverse environment. One review (about 7.7%) noted struggles with thesis support.
With an average rating of 4/5 and 100% positive feedback, students highlight great learning experiences, knowledgeable faculty, and practical, technology-oriented programs. These reviews often praise the relevance of courses and flexibility in scheduling.
With an average rating of 3.5/5, ~74% of university student reviews are positive, highlighting diverse programs, engaged faculty, and unique campus environments. A small amount of negative feedback, ~17%, notes communication gaps.
University reviews are overwhelmingly positive (~75%), highlighting excellent and accessible education, supportive professors, and engaging teaching methods. Students appreciate guidance in course selection and opportunities for deep engagement. Minimal negative feedback was noted.
All three reviews are overwhelmingly positive, giving a perfect 5/5 average. Students praise the high learning standards, qualified lecturers, and modern facilities. One review also notes a serene environment.
The single review is positive, rating 4 out of 5 stars. It highlights learning practical skills in electrical circuits and information systems, aiding job prospects. Professors' diverse expertise was also praised.
My experience as an Erasmus student was not that good. Starting from the teachers, they are supposed to teach in English but they just don't know the language very well, that is why the performance is poor as well as what arrives to the student in terms of study content. To follow with the complete lack of heating system in all the buildings except for the library (where the people who don't use laptops like to occupy the only few spots with sockets). The organization is very poor, it will very often happen that a communication of a canceled class will not be done, having you waking up early in the morning to find out there was not class that day, not to count that 1 hour and half spent on the bus to go and come back from the university (if you live in La Merced and don't have a bike, which would easily get stolen after 2 days after the purchase).
overall good experience. could be better in terms of student technical team activities and support. Kleve is very small and is not ideal for a student life. overall good experience. could be better in terms of student technical team activities and support. Kleve is very small and is not ideal for a student life.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
