Norwegian University of Science and Technology - NTNU vs Siberian State Automobile and Highway Academy - SIBADI vs BI Norwegian Business School - BI vs NHH Norwegian School of Economics vs Mount Mary University
Side-by-side comparison from 21 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +strong academic programs & practical exposure
- +vibrant social life & student organizations
- +knowledgeable professors & engaging lectures
- +Strong focus on architecture education
- +Limited flexible study options
- +Knowledgeable lecturers and strong academic environment
- +Practical approach and industry connections
- +Good location and food variety
- +Free tuition and diverse program options
- +High quality education and international exchange opportunities
- +Supportive environment and welcoming community
Nothing to show
- +Insightful understanding of Norwegian welfare model
- +Exploration of universalism, public sector strength, and social solidarity
- +Balance of economic competitiveness and social protection
- +Knowledgeable and supportive professors
- +Well-organized lectures and practicals
- +Strong academic structure
- -Outdated facilities and lack of modern resources are frustrating.
- -Inconsistent teaching quality and unhelpful instructors are a major concern.
- -Administrative and management issues create unnecessary obstacles and stress.
- -Administrative and management issues create frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment hinder learning.
- -Lack of effective communication and support is a recurring problem.
- -Students dislike the lack of proper support and communication from staff.
- -They often complain about outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources.
- -Students express frustration with the curriculum and teaching methods being unengaging or irrelevant.
- -Administrative and management issues are a frequent source of frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are a recurring concern.
- -Poor teaching quality and curriculum relevance are often criticized.
Nothing to show
- -Administrative and management issues cause significant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment hinder learning and comfort.
- -The curriculum lacks depth and practical application.
- -Administrative and management issues cause confusion and frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Lack of clear communication and support from staff is a recurring problem.
This institution garners strong approval, particularly in student life, its strongest area. Facilities and location also receive high marks. Conversely, internationality stands out as the weakest point among the evaluated aspects. Accommodation, professors, and overall value are rated positively, indicating a generally well-regarded university experience.
Data for this university indicates a consistent score of zero across all assessed categories. Consequently, there are no discernible strongest or weakest areas, as all aspects of the university—facilities, professors, location, student life, accommodation, internationality, and value—are rated equally low. This suggests a need for comprehensive review and improvement across the entire institution.
This institution demonstrates remarkable strengths, with exceptional ratings for its Facilities, Professors, and Location, all scoring an impressive 4.5. Student Life and Internationality also receive solid marks at 4. However, Accommodations and Value emerge as areas needing development, each receiving a lower score of 3.
This institution receives exceptionally high marks for its facilities and accommodation, both scoring an outstanding 4.7. Professors and internationality are also strong points, with ratings of 4.4. Student life and value for money are rated at 4.3 and 4.1 respectively. The university's location is its weakest area, though still a respectable 4.1.
Nothing to show
Remarkably, this institution achieved a perfect score of 5 out of 5 in every evaluated category. The facilities, professors, location, student life, accommodation, internationality, and overall value are all considered outstanding. There are no apparent weak areas, as all aspects of the university have been rated at the highest possible level.
With outstanding scores in Internationality, this institution shines in its global outlook. Student life, accommodation, location, and value are also highly regarded, each receiving a solid 4. Professors are similarly well-rated, demonstrating a strong academic core. The weakest area, though still respectable, is facilities, scoring a 3. Overall, the university presents a very positive and well-rounded experience for its students.
With a 4.44/5 average from 9 reviews, ~89% are positive. Students highlight excellent education and social life, especially for engineering. No negative feedback was provided.
With a 4/5 average rating, university student reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The single reviewer praised the architecture program for being unique in Omsk.
With an average rating of 4/5, student feedback is highly positive. Reviewers consistently praise the great location, knowledgeable lecturers, and strong academic environment. Industry connections and a practical approach to education were also highlighted.
Reviews are overwhelmingly positive, with ~0% negative feedback. Students praise the free tuition and wide range of masters specializations, highlighting a conducive academic and diverse environment.
Nothing to show
Based on one review, the university received a perfect 5/5 rating. Positive feedback (~100%) highlights a comprehensive understanding of the Norwegian welfare model.
With one review and an average rating of 4/5, feedback is predominantly positive. The single positive review highlights a decent academic structure with knowledgeable professors. Negative feedback is negligible, representing approximately 0% of all feedback.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
