Pan-European University - APEIRON vs Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies vs Milligan College vs Rushford Business School vs Bolgatanga Technical University - BOLGATU
Side-by-side comparison from 74 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Welcoming facilities and helpful student services
- +Well-equipped library with digital resources
- +Strong academic programs with interdisciplinary focus
- +Excellent professors and practical knowledge
- +High reputation and valuable networking opportunities
Nothing to show
- +Flexible study schedules and diverse themes
- +High-quality faculty with global perspectives
- +Relevant MBA programs for career advancement
Nothing to show
- +Dedicated and knowledgeable lecturers
- +Supportive campus environment and student well-being
- +Focus on student development and value for money
- +Supportive and intelligent lecturers
- +Disciplined and knowledge-focused environment
- +Amazing campus life and student support
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and poor resources are a constant problem.
- -Lack of engagement and support from instructors is disappointing.
- -Excessive tuition fees and poor value for money.
- -Ineffective and insensitive administrative and support services.
- -Unprofessional and judgmental staff.
Nothing to show
- -Lack of promised support and opportunities.
- -Poor post-enrollment communication.
Nothing to show
- -Administrative and management issues are a frequent source of frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and poor maintenance are commonly criticized.
- -Lack of effective communication and support is a recurring complaint.
- -Administrative inefficiencies and poor service delivery, including bribery.
- -Insufficient funding for departments and lack of essential learning tools.
- -Expensive transportation and numerous charges for school needs.
Across all surveyed categories, the institution received ratings of zero. This indicates a consistent lack of strength in every area assessed, including facilities, professors, location, student life, accommodation, internationality, and overall value. No particular aspect stands out as stronger or weaker than the others, as all received identical, low scores.
Academic excellence stands out, with a high rating for professors. Location and internationality also received positive marks. However, student life and accommodation were identified as areas needing improvement, indicated by lower scores. Facilities and overall value fall somewhere in the middle, suggesting a mixed but generally positive perception of the university's offerings.
Nothing to show
This institution receives excellent marks, with its **Facilities** standing out as the strongest area, earning a perfect 5. **Professors** also garner high praise at 4.9. **Student Life**, while still strong, is the relatively weakest aspect with a score of 4.4. The university demonstrates a solid all-around performance with high ratings in location, accommodation, internationality, and value.
Nothing to show
Student life stands out as the university's strongest aspect, receiving a high rating of 4.3. Professors and value also scored very well, both at 4.18. Accommodation follows closely with a rating of 4. The weakest area, based on these scores, is the university's location, rated at 3.64. Facilities and internationality also received solid, though not exceptional, marks.
This institution presents a varied picture based on its ratings. Student life emerges as the strongest area, indicating a vibrant campus experience. Conversely, location received the lowest score, suggesting potential drawbacks in accessibility or surroundings. Other categories like professors, value, and internationality all received solid mid-range scores, painting a generally positive but not exceptional portrait of the university.
With a 4/5 average rating and ~100% positive sentiment, students praise the faculty's appearance, cleanliness, and convenience. Student services are highlighted as active and informative.
With a 3/5 average rating, reviews show ~33% negative feedback. Positive comments highlight theoretical/practical knowledge and reputation, while negative feedback points to high tuition and unhelpful administrative support.
Nothing to show
Nearly all reviews are positive, praising program flexibility, diverse themes, and supportive faculty. A small percentage of feedback mentions unfulfilled promises and poor communication.
Nothing to show
With an average rating of 4.27/5 from 11 reviews, ~73% of feedback is positive. Students praise amazing lecturers, a focus on total development, and a positive campus life. No negative feedback was provided.
About ~74% of reviews are positive, praising knowledgeable and supportive lecturers, a disciplined environment, and valuable experiences. Negative feedback (~8.3%) mentions issues with infrastructure and administrative processes.
Nothing to show
The Graduate Institute Geneva (IHEID) is one of the worst educational institutions in Switzerland. It's important to dive into the specifics as to why. When it comes to a master’s degree in Switzerland, tuition ranges from 500–2,000 Swiss francs, however, IHEID charges foreign students a whopping 8,000 Swiss francs. While you may argue that American universities charge more and so therefore this is a bargain, you would be dumbfounded to experience some of the educational conditions in comparison to American universities. • Scholarships: For over a decade, IHEID has shown no transparency on its scholarships. At this point, it can be assumed that something terribly wrong is going on behind the scene, as they have refused to show how many scholarship packages are provided but have justified an increase in tuition in this manner. IHEID has been audited by so many governmental agencies it reeks of fraudulent governance. The institute has been financially audited, its governance has been audited, even its sexual harassment mechanism has been audited. • Student Representation: The Institute has been called out for a lack of student involvement for years, going far as appearing in front of state officials to plead their case. It is clear however that the new director enjoys this level of student participation as she cancelled her meetings with the student association for over 3 months this past 2021 summer, to punish them, for an article that was written in the independent student press. She has called members of the association intimidating and harassing when they have advocated for better housing services. The trauma some members of the association have faced has pushed them into depression, and psychotic breaks. Alumni of the association have experienced these tactics throughout generations and is an integral part of the IHEID student association experience. • Sexual and Moral Harassment: IHEID Senior administrators have been accused of sexual harassment for over ten years, while the directrice herself has recently been accused of intimidating and threatening members of the Student Association, IHEID student journalists and independent advocates. IHEID’s most valuable asset isn't its students, but its reputation and anyone that attempts to bring anything to light is disposable. As a 2014 article states, if you do not like the Institute, you can leave”. • Career Services: As a foreign student, Switzerland is a distinctively difficult country to migrate to. You are effectively competing against the Swiss/permanent residents, and then Europeans as they are legally prioritized in terms of visas. Unless you are in one of those situations, your status will be considered a third-country national (Asians, Africans, Americans). How is it them that career services only have 1–2 people on staff for a 1000 student institution? Furthermore, the IHEID does not recognize institutional racism, and it, therefore, does not provide resistance techniques to counter these policies. • No skill-based centres: Where American universities may have writing centres, IHEID does not make any effort to close the academic gap between students whose language isn't English or may have studied in another language in their bachelors. You also do not have any math, Econ, or stats centre to gain help or tutoring when needed. • The Interdisciplinary program: Additionally, if you happened to have chosen the Masters in International Development, you will soon notice that you are actually not learning much. The quality of the core courses is far below the quality promised. Essentially, you are buying a degree and you do not need to invest too much time or effort into your courses. It is also not expected; Professors in the Interdisciplinary program do not connect with you in the same way other program professors do. Actually, the program is referred to as the Cash Cow of the Institute by professors themselves. This program will not teach you IR concepts, the bare minimum of political science, such as you would in a government 101 class. ○ Students Background: Since there are no IR or Policy sci requirements to enter this program, your peers can have studied biology or English literature. This will impact the level of academic rigour you will be exposed to. • Teaching Assistants: Their salaries have not been increased in over 7 years. When they sign their contracts they are not shown internal regulations or teaching staff regulations. They are not only the least paid in the entire country when recently told they may get a raise, but their social benefits such as unemployment are also significantly reduced. The manner in which they are treated those not encourage master students to rely on them for academic support. IHEID’s priority is to build its reputation on the backs of students, particularly students of diversity. The Institute counts on students’ ties with the institution to avoid improving its services. As a student whose visa is associated with the school, I am less likely to revolt. The same can be said for students under scholarships, or employed by it. It is a terrible place to conduct one’s study and I would not recommend it to my worst enemy. Below are some of the articles written that convey the previous facts: particularly the latest developments regarding the ongoing movement; No more silencing students.
Nothing to show
I regret choosing Rushford Business School for my MBA. Despite detailed discussions and assurances from its president, Syed Tufail, none of the promised support or opportunities were delivered. Communication after enrollment was extremely poor, and the overall experience did not meet expectations. Sharing this to help others make informed decisions.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
This university has a long way to go in terms of numbers and quality care for their students and also in terms of preparing students for the outside world and I won't recommend it for anyone who wants quality education beyond the norm we experience here. In campus life what stood out for me was my final year project because I had the opportunity of doing a real-life project instead of using animals.
