Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman vs National Aviation University vs National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy vs MIM Kyiv Business School - MIM vs National University of Food Technologies - NUFT

This institution demonstrates particular strengths in **Student Life**, receiving a high rating of 4.5. **Location** and **Professors** are also well-regarded, both scoring 4. **Accomodation** stands out as the weakest area, with a rating of 2.5. **Facilities**, **Internationality**, and **Value** fall within the mid-range of scores.

This institution's ratings present a mixed picture. Its strongest points are location, earning a respectable 3, suggesting good accessibility and surroundings. However, areas such as accommodation, professors, facilities, student life, and internationality all received a 2, indicating a need for significant improvement in these crucial aspects of the student experience. The value also received a 2, reflecting concerns about the return on investment.

This institution excels particularly in areas like Student Life (4.6), Location (4.5), and Facilities (4.3), indicating a vibrant and well-situated campus environment. Conversely, Accomodation and Internationality received the lowest scores, both at 3. Despite these areas, Value stands out with a perfect 5, suggesting a strong return on investment. Professor ratings are a moderate 3.7.

This institution receives high marks across most categories, with Facilities standing out as its strongest area at a perfect 5. Student Life, Accomodation, Internationality, and Value are also exceptionally strong, each scoring 4.67. Professors represent the weakest area, though still solid at 4.33, with Location also performing well at 4.5.

This institution demonstrates a strong showing in its location, which received the highest rating. Conversely, its facilities are the weakest point, scoring significantly lower than other aspects. Student life and value also received favorable marks, while professors, accommodation, and internationality fall in the middle range.

With an average rating of 3.25/5, feedback is split evenly between positive and negative. Students praised good staff and interesting programs, while others cited corruption and unengaging teaching.

The single review indicates a highly negative experience. The reviewer cited old equipment not meeting program needs and professors with poor English proficiency, even in an English-taught program. This represented ~100% of feedback, resulting in a 1/5 average rating.

With an average rating of 4.5/5, 100% of feedback is positive. Students praise educational quality, practical lessons, encouraged critical thinking, and opportunities for creativity.

Students highly praise the comprehensive curriculum and excellent teaching staff, finding instruction accessible and engaging. Experiential learning opportunities and supportive faculty are frequently highlighted. No negative feedback was provided.

With an average rating of 2/5, two out of three reviews are negative (~67%). Students report excessive assignments and a focus on online tasks over practical learning.