De Montfort University - DMU vs Almaty University of Power Engineering and Telecommunications - AUPET vs Almaty Management University - ALMA vs Almaty Technological University - ATU vs Satbayev University
Side-by-side comparison from 76 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
- +Focused, career-oriented engineering education
- +Skills for growing tech fields
- +Strong regional reputation in engineering
- +Experienced and engaging professors
- +Practical, hands-on learning opportunities
- +Engaging and inspiring teaching
- +Excellent career support and opportunities
- +Strong sense of community and belonging
- +Strong academic programs and focus on practical skills
- +International collaboration and exchange opportunities
- +Opportunities for in-demand professions and research
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 lack of progression to higher education.
- -Unresponsive and unhelpful faculty, with vague or harsh feedback.
- -Technical issues with submitting work.
- -Inefficient administrative processes and unclear communication.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of necessary resources.
- -Inconsistent teaching quality and unengaging curriculum.
- -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- -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are a recurring complaint.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.
- -Boring training system.
- -Administrative and management issues.
- -Outdated facilities.
- -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- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities are a significant drawback.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.
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- -Outdated teaching methods and materials are a significant concern.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.
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 demonstrates notable strengths in several key areas. Student life, accommodation, and professor quality all receive excellent scores of 4.5. The location is also well-regarded at 4. While facilities and value are rated a respectable 3.5 and 3 respectively, the university's internationality is its weakest point, scoring a low 2.
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 demonstrates a remarkably consistent performance across all assessed areas. Every category, from facilities and professors to student life and accommodation, received a top rating. Similarly, its location, internationality, and perceived value are all highlighted as exceptional. This suggests a comprehensively strong university experience with no particular weaknesses identified in this evaluation.
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.
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.
~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 a 3.5/5 average rating from two reviews, ~50% of feedback is positive. Students highlight the university's strong engineering focus and career-oriented education in fields like radio engineering and telecommunications. No negative feedback was provided.
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.
The single review expressed strong dissatisfaction, with 100% of feedback being negative. The student found the university's training system boring and did not meet expectations, recommending against attendance.
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%.
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.
The educational process is just fine; a university is an excellent option for people who speak Kazakh or Russian natively; I enrolled in 2019 in a complete English-based education, and let me briefly explain how each year went. The first year was challenging because the university did not provide a preparation year, so it was tough. The second year was somehow more accessible since we had already gotten used to the languages and started icebreaking. The third year was great. We could handle everything related to studies. In the fourth year, which is the current year, I'm having a serious problem related to the writing of the graduational diploma since most of the process isn't ready to handle international students. As I said previously, the university is excellent for Kazakh and Russian native speakers. But be ready to handle a lot of paperwork, and most of the time, you won't be able to write the "statement" or "application" in Russian. It's "заявление."
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
