De Montfort University - DMU vs Kazakh-British Technical University - KBTU vs Satbayev University vs KIMEP University - KIMEP vs Al-Farabi Kazakh National University - Mrs.
Side-by-side comparison from 78 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Supportive & engaging lecturers
- +Modern campus & excellent facilities
- +Welcoming & diverse student community
- +Strong academic foundation and competitive programming opportunities
- +Strong academic programs and focus on practical skills
- +International collaboration and exchange opportunities
- +Opportunities for in-demand professions and research
- +Engaging programs foster passion and develop essential skills.
- +Positive peer relationships and community atmosphere are highly valued.
- +Strong academic programs and experienced faculty
- +Extensive program variety and robust infrastructure
- +Valuable research opportunities and international collaboration
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.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Inflexible policies and lack of support are problematic.
- -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- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities are a significant drawback.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.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frequent problems.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment hinder learning.
- -Lack of clear communication and course structure leads to confusion.
- -Outdated teaching methods and materials are a significant concern.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.
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- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities.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 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.
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.
This institution receives strong commendations, particularly in its location, student life, internationality, and value, all scoring a high 4.5. Accommodation is also well-regarded at 4. The academic staff are rated favorably at 4. The weakest area noted is facilities, which still achieve a solid 3.5 out of 5.
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.
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 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.
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%.
With an average rating of 4.5/5 stars and 100% positive feedback, students praise the university's journalism program for fostering a passion for storytelling and communication. A minor concern about rising tuition and some professor competence was outweighed by positive social experiences.
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.
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.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
