Paris Graduate School of Digital Innovation - EPITECH vs Petrópolis Faculty of Medicine vs The University of Auckland vs Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University vs Cadi Ayyad University Marrakesh
Side-by-side comparison from 65 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Innovative, hands-on learning approach
- +Strong emphasis on independence and self-sufficiency
- +Challenging but rewarding educational experience
- +Approachable and qualified faculty
- +Diverse project and internship opportunities
- +Beautiful campus environment
- +Passionate, world-class faculty and academic support
- +Quality education, resources, and learning environments
- +Strong career guidance and student backing
Nothing to show
- +Supportive & approachable professors
- +Wide range of academic programs & specializations
- +Calm, focused academic environment with practical learning
Nothing to show
- +High academic quality and qualified professors
- +Free tuition and accessible entry
- +Good reputation and campus environment
- -Administrative and management issues, including a lack of student well-being focus and a profit-driven approach that compromises educational quality.
- -Insufficient focus on soft skills development alongside technical education.
- -High cost relative to the perceived value or quality of education.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of modern resources are frequently mentioned.
- -Inconsistent or poor quality of teaching and curriculum are common complaints.
- -Administrative inefficiencies and a lack of support create frustration.
- -Inadequate faculty instruction and feedback quality.
- -Lack of student support services and social integration.
- -High cost not justified by the overall educational value.
Nothing to show
- -Outdated and poor-quality facilities are a significant drawback.
- -Inconsistent teaching quality and unreliable instructors are frustrating.
- -Lack of new hires and outdated faculty negatively impacts the student experience.
Nothing to show
- -Excessive administrative and communication problems.
- -Poorly maintained and outdated facilities.
- -Insufficient resources and support for students.
This institution excels in several key areas, achieving perfect scores for its facilities, professors, and student life, alongside strong internationality. Location also scores well, contributing to a positive overall impression. However, accommodation stands out as a weaker point, receiving a moderate rating. The value proposition is considered good, reflecting a generally positive assessment with room for improvement in housing.
This institution demonstrates notable strengths in its **location**, achieving a perfect score. Its **facilities**, **professors**, and **student life** also receive solid marks, all rated at 4. A significant area for improvement, however, is **accommodation**, which received a considerably lower rating. **Internationality** and **value** present moderate scores, suggesting room for growth in these aspects.
This institution garners strong marks in several key areas, with its location and professors receiving the highest ratings. Student life and accommodation, while still respectable, present areas for potential improvement. The university also scores well in terms of internationality and value, indicating a generally positive overall student experience.
Nothing to show
This institution demonstrates a mixed performance across various aspects. Location stands out as a strength, receiving a strong rating of 4. Conversely, facilities represent the weakest area, scoring a 3. Other categories, including professors, student life, accommodation, internationality, and value, fall within a moderate range, suggesting areas for potential improvement alongside recognized strengths.
Nothing to show
Examining the university's ratings reveals a mixed but generally positive picture. The highest marks were achieved in **Value** (4.6) and **Professors** and **Internationality** (both 4.2), indicating significant strengths in these areas. Conversely, the university received its lowest scores for **Accomodation** (3), followed closely by **Facilities** and **Location** (both 3.2). Student life received a moderate rating of 3.4.
With a 2.5/5 average rating, reviews are mixed, with approximately 25% positive and 50% negative feedback. Recurring themes include a strong technical environment versus a lack of soft skills training, and concerns about the school's focus on profit over student well-being.
With two positive reviews and an average rating of 4/5, feedback highlights numerous project opportunities and approachable, qualified professors. Students also appreciate early internships.
Approximately 95% of reviews are positive, citing passionate lecturers, quality education, and ample resources. A small percentage of negative feedback mentions limited lecturer availability and insufficient feedback on assignments.
Nothing to show
Around 74% of reviews are positive, highlighting approachable professors, a calm academic environment, and practical learning opportunities. A small portion of feedback, about 11.1%, notes occasional teacher unreliability and poor facilities.
Nothing to show
With a ~4/5 average rating, nearly all reviews praise the university's qualified staff and academic quality. Some mention challenges like course length and subject availability.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
I found that the overall university experience was not really worth my time and money. Respected professors were only actually lecturing for 1-2 weeks per course, with PhD graduates teaching the majority of the course. Sometimes these PhD graduates weren't able to speak fluent English, which made the learning and teaching actually going on very questionable. In addition to this, you would submit a 3000 word essay, and receive a 15-20 words of feedback. I am certain that very little learning, improvement and education can occur when the feedback loop is so minimal, often generic. In addition to this, many of the "lab" or "tutorial" components were actually university students completing post-graduate experiments as part of their thesis studies. For example, in my psych201 tutorial, we had to spend 2 hours looking at a screen only pressing the "X" or "Z" key a total of 1200 times, and if we did not attend this lecture, we would lose 2% of our total grade. Overall, I question how much education and learning goes on, specifically in the Commerce and Science Faculties. I found my high school classes to go into more depth, with the teachers actually providing many one-on-one conversations to ensure learning is taking place, and this is the learnings that allowed me to pass my first 3 years of papers before any new content was covered, after which, the lectures would have half the class walk out because they couldn't speak fluent english, with students opting to self-teach themselves. If you are requiring students to partake in a study, they must be reimbursed for their time, especially if no learning is taking place. If you are charging students $1000 per course, then the university can afford to pay for staff to assess all of the PHD candidates fluency in English, before they are allowed to teach. In addition, no learning can take place when a question is asked in a foreign language, and the tutor/lecturer replies in a foreign language.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show