I find much to disagree with here. My sample size (5 or 6?) is small, but I've found the Waterloo folks to be solid. Just to touch on some comments: > 1) UoW

I find much to disagree with here. My sample size (5 or 6?) is small, but I've found the Waterloo folks to be solid. Just to touch on some comments: > 1) UoW has a really low requirement for entry, of my class many students went to study at UoW most of them had average to below average grade, compared to Oxbridge UoW has a joke of an entry requirement, I later learned they have a very high dropout rate after first year - which explains things, but I think is disingenuous to their students. School should be a place of learning not a lab for natural selection. Getting solid results with weak students makes this all the more impressive. > 4) UoW has really bad reputation in the academical world and ppl doing basic research ( look up UoW ranking ) This is very elitist. Not everyone needs to graduate from a top tier research institution. Many top liberal arts colleges are weak in research too. > 6) Universities historically should have weak ties with industries. The reason for this is independence. I know for a fact that UoW has strong ties with microsoft in the past and used to push .NET stuff on their students ! how do you expect a university to be intellectually honest if they are attached to a corporation ? Most professional schools have strong ties with industry. Any senior partner at McKinsey (or Goldman) can get a meeting with the dean of any business school in America. This is a technical program, not philosophy or art history. Most engineering students welcome industry ties, and the job prospects that come with it.