De Montfort University - DMU vs Almaty University of Power Engineering and Telecommunications - AUPET vs Kazakh-British Technical University - KBTU vs Turan University vs University of Central Asia
Side-by-side comparison from 72 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Supportive & engaging lecturers
- +Modern campus & excellent facilities
- +Welcoming & diverse student community
- +Focused, career-oriented engineering education
- +Skills for growing tech fields
- +Strong regional reputation in engineering
- +Strong academic foundation and competitive programming opportunities
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
- +Good professors and modern campus
- +Strong support from the admission office
- +Effective advertising and diverse student body
- -Poor academic quality and limited credit transferability.
- -Unresponsive and unconstructive faculty feedback.
- -Inefficient and problematic administrative processes.
- -Inefficient administrative processes and unclear communication.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of necessary resources.
- -Inconsistent teaching quality and unengaging curriculum.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Inflexible policies and lack of support are problematic.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
- -Excessive administrative and management issues.
- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities.
- -Lack of student support and resources.
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.
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.
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
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
This institution garners excellent scores in several key areas, notably achieving perfect marks for Professors, Student Life, and Accommodation. Facilities and Internationality also receive strong ratings. However, the Value aspect stands out as the weakest, receiving a notably lower score compared to other categories, suggesting potential areas for improvement in terms of cost-effectiveness.
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 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 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
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
With a 4/5 average rating, approximately 100% of feedback is positive. Students highlight good professors, a modern campus, and helpful admissions.
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
