This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The bumper thread of University League Tables discussion - includes an info post

Scroll to see replies

The three most significant ones are Leeds has jumped to 7th from 23rd,

Look at the reasons.Student satisfaction has increased slightly but that is more than offset by a lower averge quality intake. The big difference is graduate prospects. Have more Leeds graduates found jobs or have Leeds got better at collecting the stats?

Then repeat for all the other changes.

Reply 2321

a.partridge

We all know that league tables are stupid anyway... but does anyone notice anything strange about the final scores here? I Wonder what's really going on ;o

this being from the 'complete university guide table'

hrmn.jpg96.3KB

Reply 2322

nulli tertius

Original post by a.partridge

What is going on is that Lancaster has a facilities spend that is 62% higher than Bristol's.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?v=wide

Reply 2323

a.partridge

Original post by nulli tertius

What is going on is that Lancaster has a facilities spend that is 62% higher than Bristol's.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?v=wide

Hrmn good find, although It still raises further questions like...

If the breakdown of the facilities spend is on 'careers service, sports and counseling' you would think these things would be represented by the student prospects and satisfaction respectively - the quantity of money spent seems a bit arbitrary as you might end up with a higher rank from a bit of bad management ;z

Reply 2324

nulli tertius

Original post by a.partridge

Facilities spend is, like entry standards, a measure of a university's inputs whereas student satisfaction or graduate prospects is a measure of the university's outputs.

The key to the data says that facilities spend data is unreliably low for collegiate universities and yet it is noticeable that of the top 10 universities, seven are collegiate, the exceptions being Imperial (which of course was collegiate until 2007), Warwick and Bath.

Is it really plausible to believe that Reading spends only 58% of what Surrey spends or that Hertfordshire spends four times the amount of Anglia Ruskin? One would expect these sort of differences to be visible on the ground.

The figures for academic services spend look no more reliable. What on earth does LSE spend £2076 per student on? It is twice as much as Aston, Bath and Loughborough which are doing big ticket science and engineering. Economics journals just aren't that expensive. Premises costs are excluded from this spending, so it isn't that LSE is renting central London space. Likewise Liverpool manages to spend £400 more per student than Manchester, but Jodrell Bank must cost Manchester a pretty penny. And on what pray, does Middlesex spend the £1000 more per student than is spent on a Kingston student bearing in mind that the total spend on a Leeds student (and Leeds of course has a medical school) is £825

Reply 2325

a_mashru88

Original post by nulli tertius

What on earth does LSE spend £2076 per student on? It is twice as much as Aston, Bath and Loughborough which are doing big ticket science and engineering. Economics journals just aren't that expensive.

It's totally ignorant to think LSE only teaches Economics, it doesn't. It subscribes to a huge amount of journals (80,000 ejournals and ebooks), and they are expensive. LSE helps to fund social science experiments, such as psychology. The library is one of the largest libraries in the world devoted to the economic and social sciences. The Library has earned 'Designation' status for its pre-eminent collections of national and international importance by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). They have a top careers service (which might help to explain why the LSE has the highest graduate prospects). Their lecturers are some of the best academics in their field, and the LSE has to keep counter-offering other top unis offers (e.g. Harvard trying to take LSE's 1st year Economics lecturer, Alwyn Young). The LSE are also investing heavily in new buildings such as the new student centre. Departmental spend is high, with lecturers being able to take students out to see plays, go to restaurants, and to pubs - with little or no cost to the student.

Reply 2326

nulli tertius

Original post by a_mashru88

Rather than give what amounts to marketing puff for LSE, just think about what you have written.

First of all the statistics I quoted are said to exclude premises spend where LSE might be epected to have a high figure.

Salaries, with a modest London weighting, are identical in all Pre-92 universities. The statistics I have quoted would ignore academics' salaries but would take account of slightly higher salaries for lab technicians.

LSE has no museum.

I accept, though I do not know that, LSE may have a higher spend on careers services and student entertainment.

However, these costs pale into insignificance beside the cost of "big ticket" physical and biological science research and engineering.

The reality is that the figures used in the CUG for these spends are meaningless because different universities collate their figures in different ways.

For example LSE's library spend is published at £7.1M, Aston's is published at £1.2M, which looks fine until one realises that LSE's includes staff costs, utilities etc whereas Aston's includes nothing but the books and journals. In other words one is comparing apples and pears.

Reply 2327

Txi

Original post by River85

Well, it's largely the result of significant grade inflation combined with an almost year on year increase in application numbers.

Not really, applications are down this year due to the fee rises.

Reply 2328

River85

Original post by Txi

Not really, applications are down this year due to the fee rises.

This year. yes. though some universities have still seen significant increase in applicants.

I was referring to the general trend over the last fifteen years which has seen a very large increase in application numbers as well as numbers of people at university (two falls being the year top up fees were introduced - 2006 entry, and this application cycle)

Not I said an increase in almost every year.

Reply 2329

Txi

Original post by River85

Huh ?

So what does all this have to do with numbers being down this year but grades are still high.

And this year is all I was and am asking about - please note

That is a contradictory situation which leads to the suspicion of rigging for various reasons by the unis.

Reply 2330

River85

Original post by Txi

Because you cannot look at this year in isolation. In determining typical offers universities use the trend over recent years. Even though there has been a drop this year, this is not represented across all universities and still leaves a large number of applications compared to ten years ago.

You have also chosen to ignore the crucial second point about grade inflation. Although application numbers are down slightly, grade inflation is still noticeable. I wager that this year will be another record year for grades and passes. If, say, one in every 10 students is achieving AAA, and half of grades are either A or B, then do you really expect universities to give modest offers for oversubscribed courses?

Reply 2331

Txi

Original post by River85

So what ?

You can't deny that this year is watermark year, 9k a year + expenses is no joke and a lot people will not take the bait.

There is every chance that enrollments will drop back a bit.

You seem to take this very personally, why do you care either way - you are long past your UG days ?

Reply 2332

River85

Original post by Txi

So what ?

You can't deny that this year is watermark year, 9k a year + expenses is no joke and a lot people will not take the bait.

There is every chance that enrollments will drop back a bit.

It was unsurprising that the higher fees resulted in a drop of applicant numbers, as top up fees did in 2006.

Whether this is part of a long term decline in applicant numbers remains to be seen. When fees were introduced in the late 90s, and then trebled in 2006, it did not harm applicant numbers long term.

I expect many will be more careful in their applications and seek even greater value from their education. But I think numbers will rise and stabalise, particularly as more get to understand the new fees and repayment structure.

And you're still ignoring grade inflation which has been a major reason for increased offers over the years.

Even if there is going to be a decline in applicant numbers this is not going to result in lower offers this very year, is it? In your own words, you're only looking at this year, so I fail to see what you're getting at.

You seem to take this very personally, why do you care either way - you are long past your UG days ?

I'm not taking it personally and I'm not "long past my UG days" considering I've only just finished. Even if I was, I don't see what difference that should make.

Reply 2333

Txi

What inflation ?

The difference is that one would not care either way as applications would be irrelevant to them .

Surely an obvious point.

Reply 2334

River85

Original post by Txi

What inflation ?

The rampant grade inflation that has taken place over the last generation or more, meaning the once rare A grade is now very common and, due to the frequency of A grades, the A* has been introduced in GCSEs and A-levels.

If you aren't aware that grade inflation has taken place then you clearly don't know much as this is a well known fact. You should therefore not comment on these matters.

The difference is that one would not care either way as applications would be irrelevant to them .

Surely an obvious point.

I have no idea what you mean. Who wouldn't care? Applications are irrelevant to whom?

Reply 2335

North Irelandman

When you compare all these spending figures you should remember that you are looking at one small contributor to the overall score; depending on the methodology used by CUG it may have a small (or not so small) weighting.

Also you seem to argue about the reliability of figures, which I quote:
"The raw data for the League Table all come from sources in the public domain. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) provided data for entry standards, student-staff ratios, spending on academic services, facilities spending, good honours degrees, graduate prospects, completion and overseas student enrolments. HESA is the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about the universities."

LSE might not have a museum as you say for some reason, but it is building a new student centre from the ground up, and has one of the largest social science libraries in the world, which I think justifies a lot of their spend.

Reply 2336

Txi

The issue has nought to do with inflation, it is you that brought it up.

UG Applications are irrelevant to 27 year old who have graduated a long time ago - that's who.

If you aren't aware these issues then you clearly don't know much as this applies directly to you a well known fact. You should therefore not comment on these matters.