The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by nulli tertius
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.


I don't want to get into a 'thing' about this, as I don't care that much to be honest - lots of unis are great. I'm just a bit confused as to what you are trying to get at... you're using stats to say that the stats given in the league table are wrong?
I basically just copied and pasted the league table's blurb for how they justified LSEs student spend, because you asked what they spend the £2076 on. It didn't say LSE has a museum and nor did I. If you think that the figures were complied incorrectly, then you should question those who compiled it. I only questioned your implication that all LSE buys for its students is, "economics journals."
If league tables continue to publish incorrectly compiled data, they will soon lose their reputation, so I wouldn't let it get to you.
Original post by a_mashru88
I don't want to get into a 'thing' about this, as I don't care that much to be honest - lots of unis are great. I'm just a bit confused as to what you are trying to get at... you're using stats to say that the stats given in the league table are wrong?
I basically just copied and pasted the league table's blurb for how they justified LSEs student spend, because you asked what they spend the £2076 on. It didn't say LSE has a museum and nor did I. If you think that the figures were complied incorrectly, then you should question those who compiled it. I only questioned your implication that all LSE buys for its students is, "economics journals."
If league tables continue to publish incorrectly compiled data, they will soon lose their reputation, so I wouldn't let it get to you.


I will give a constructive answer.

I accept that LSE doesn't only buy economics journals; that was simplistic shorthand for the sort of expenditure incurred in providing social science courses.

HESA publishes criteria for data collection and then collects data from universities but does not necessarily validate that data. The difficulties in doing this can be seen that we are now more than a year on from AAB+ status being vital to determining university funding, but HEFCE still doesn't believe it has accurate data from universities as to the number of AAB+ students.

An important test with any data collection exercise is a "reality check". Do the figures seem right? Amongst the examples I gave was an enormous disparity in spending between Kingston and Middlesex.

If one looks at LSE in isolation, one can well believe it has a spend of that amount. However, if one then compares it with institutions that, from the courses they offer, would naturally have very high levels of expenditure, LSE is up with them. If one then looks at what money pits LSE has, it hasn't got many. Public museums run by universities cost a lot. So do labs, national standard sports facilities, radio telescopes, botanic gardens, arts theatres. LSE has none of these. It does have very expensive real estate but that is excluded from the calculations. It does have a high library spend but even that raises some questions. Other universities with a lot of students who have a heavy drain on library budgets, particularly medicine, and the hard sciences seem to spend far less on their library.

Ultimately, this is an issue of attribution. Unversities attribute costs were they wish for their own budgetry purposes. If that data is simply carried forward to a league table without any attempt to reattribute those costs on a common basis, we have the absurd situation that a league table position depends on whether the library cleaner's wages are attributed to the library budget or a cleaning budget. LSE seems to put every possible cost relating to the library onto the library budget. The other university I looked at, Loughborough I think, spent nothing on the library other than on books and journals. Seemingly the library staff worked for nothing, the physics department had invented limitless free electricity and the biologists had genetically engineered a printer-paper tree! Of course, in reality these costs are borne somewhere else in the university budget that has no favourable impact on its league table position.
Original post by a_mashru88


If league tables continue to publish incorrectly compiled data, they will soon lose their reputation, so I wouldn't let it get to you.


you take them seriously at the moment? The overall ranks are bad enough but the subject ranks take the piss in all league tables


Google, led me to studentroom.

Original post by River85
Yes and have done many times.

It's a lobbying group comprised of larger research intensive universities. It currently has 20 members (the membership will be expanded with Durham, York, Queen Mary and Exeter, all members of the 1994 Group, joining soon). Ninteen of the current twenty members are in the top 20 of the country in terms of research income.

League tables are not meant to represent the membership of the Russell Group, which is not a selection of "the best 20 or so universities". League tables attempt to rank universities according to the criteria the compilers feel are important.

As league tables include things like graduate prospects, student satisfaction and entry standards, the membership of the Russell Group will not be identical (or near identical) to the top 20 in a league table, unless that league table looked at research power and income only. You will always have a large number of universities outside the Russell Group in that top 20, namely some universities from the 1994 Group - a lobbying group for smaller research intensive universities formally established in the same year that the Russell Group was formally/officially established.


Thankyou :smile:
So it's research-based uni's?
Had a quick online search there for criticisms of the university league tables. Not much mention about spend, personally I think I would be given a low weight anyway; there was an interesting point about grade inflation though - with a view to increasing the amount of good honours. It was also mentioned that universities may be more selective in admissions with regards to UCAS points, but I would say that would happen regardless of the league tables.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by 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.


I know you are now finally banned but all I have left to say is...wow :hat2:

Original post by Frenchous
Don't be too harsh. This subsection of TSR is what gives a meaning to his life


Cheers, but not really, which is why I've barely posted in it the last two and a half years (relative to many others). Too many other things to do in life, hence not returning here in the last seven days.

Original post by y.yousef
Google, led me to studentroom.


It's a never ending circle!

Thankyou :smile:
So it's research-based uni's?


Erm....essentially yes. Most, if not all, universities conduct research but they are among our largest and the universities with the biggest 22 or so research incomes (except LSE which is a special case - it doesn't offer a science or medical faculty so this restricts its research income).
Original post by River85
I know you are now finally banned but all I have left to say is...wow :hat2:



Cheers, but not really, which is why I've barely posted in it the last two and a half years (relative to many others). Too many other things to do in life, hence not returning here in the last seven days.



It's a never ending circle!



Erm....essentially yes. Most, if not all, universities conduct research but they are among our largest and the universities with the biggest 22 or so research incomes (except LSE which is a special case - it doesn't offer a science or medical faculty so this restricts its research income).


surely a good research university, which has many resources and 'wider knowledge' shud be on the top 10 in term,s of ranking.

and with the other uni's that aint russel...what makes them so good?
Reply 2347
Original post by y.yousef
surely a good research university, which has many resources and 'wider knowledge' shud be on the top 10 in term,s of ranking.

and with the other uni's that aint russel...what makes them so good?


Not necessarily, because lots of unis have very good research and thus receive a lot of funding for that research, and there are significantly more than ten of them so there simply isn't space for all of them to be in a 'top ten'.

The unis outside the RG (Bath and St Andrews for example) tend to be smaller than the unis that make up the RG (for example Birmingham or Manchester), as it was at least and excepting Imperial and LSE. Because these unis are bigger and have more researchers it is logical that they take a greater overall chunk of the research budget. However, those who are very good outside the RG will probably take a similar amount of research money per researcher.

Often they lack a med school as well, which bring in a lot of funding (if nothing else because training one med student costs circa. 250k).
Original post by North Irelandman
Had a quick online search there for criticisms of the university league tables. Not much mention about spend, personally I think I would be given a low weight anyway; there was an interesting point about grade inflation though - with a view to increasing the amount of good honours. It was also mentioned that universities may be more selective in admissions with regards to UCAS points, but I would say that would happen regardless of the league tables.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


The two spending metrics for CUG are together worth 22.2% of the overall score.
Reply 2349
League tables are completely utterly meaningless. Everyone knows that. You might as well pull a list of institutions out of your ass.
Reply 2350
Advice needed.

I firmed Sussex over Sheffield and am slightly worried that the difference in prestige may be bigger than I thought, is this so?
Sussex is a great and well known university (at least in the UK). Have a wonderful time!
Original post by py0alb
League tables are completely utterly meaningless. Everyone knows that. You might as well pull a list of institutions out of your ass.


Even if I have pulled it out of my ass it seems like students and employers take note of it; there are a lot of people who the league tables don't apply to, but for the majority they give a reasonable indication of the quality of the institution. Obviously you can't say uni x is better than uni y at subject z, there are far too many variables to think about, but it just gives a general idea.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by roh
Not necessarily, because lots of unis have very good research and thus receive a lot of funding for that research, and there are significantly more than ten of them so there simply isn't space for all of them to be in a 'top ten'.

The unis outside the RG (Bath and St Andrews for example) tend to be smaller than the unis that make up the RG (for example Birmingham or Manchester), as it was at least and excepting Imperial and LSE. Because these unis are bigger and have more researchers it is logical that they take a greater overall chunk of the research budget. However, those who are very good outside the RG will probably take a similar amount of research money per researcher.

Often they lack a med school as well, which bring in a lot of funding (if nothing else because training one med student costs circa. 250k).


so like u no...any uni's that are not in RG, and not in top 20 lets say...are they all considered tghe same?
such as...a uni that ranking is 60...compared to a uni ranking that is 80...?
Original post by North Irelandman
Even if I have pulled it out of my ass it seems like students and employers take note of it; there are a lot of people who the league tables don't apply to, but for the majority they give a reasonable indication of the quality of the institution. Obviously you can't say uni x is better than uni y at subject z, there are far too many variables to think about, but it just gives a general idea.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App



students yes, employers - I don't think so. The last employer I asked if my uni was good enough said 'of course - any of those top 10', clearly showing he doesn't check them as my uni has been outside the top 10 (unjustly imo) for the past 2 years for random reasons like these. Employers know where the bright students go because they went there too - they don't really care much about satisfaction or spend per student etc.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by a.partridge
students yes, employers - I don't think so. The last employer I asked if my uni was good enough said 'of course - any of those top 10', clearly showing he doesn't check them as my uni has been outside the top 10 (unjustly imo) for the past 2 years for random reasons like these. Employers know where the bright students go because they went there too - they don't really care much about satisfaction or spend per student etc.


I'm in agreement with you, he didn't care about the exact position of your uni but he did reference the uni being normally considered top 10 by the league tables. The rankings are a good thing for unis to quote to promote themselves, but until graduates have come through the system and the uni name has been given a better reputation they don't mean too much.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 2356
Original post by y.yousef
so like u no...any uni's that are not in RG, and not in top 20 lets say...are they all considered tghe same?
such as...a uni that ranking is 60...compared to a uni ranking that is 80...?


No, there will be differences in research and teaching calibre from department to department and uni to uni all the way down the food chain. The difference may be less marked between 60 and 80 than it is between 1 and 20 but there will still be differences in certain areas and which these are will vary.

RG's hard to judge right now because of the expansion. If it continues to grow to include St Andrews, Bath, Leicester etc. then it could become a kitemark of a top university, for the moment it remains mainly a very effective PR tool and lobby group.
Reply 2357
Original post by roh
No, there will be differences in research and teaching calibre from department to department and uni to uni all the way down the food chain. The difference may be less marked between 60 and 80 than it is between 1 and 20 but there will still be differences in certain areas and which these are will vary.

RG's hard to judge right now because of the expansion. If it continues to grow to include St Andrews, Bath, Leicester etc. then it could become a kitemark of a top university, for the moment it remains mainly a very effective PR tool and lobby group.


This makes a fair point, as tonnes of ace universities aren't included in the RG yet, such as Surrey, Lancaster, Loughborough, and Sussex to add a few more to your list :smile:
Reply 2358
Original post by North Irelandman
Even if I have pulled it out of my ass it seems like students and employers take note of it; there are a lot of people who the league tables don't apply to, but for the majority they give a reasonable indication of the quality of the institution. Obviously you can't say uni x is better than uni y at subject z, there are far too many variables to think about, but it just gives a general idea.

Edit: Guess I should have expected to be negged 7 rep points for that - I'm barely even contradicting you.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


I didn't neg you, would you like me to prove it?
Original post by py0alb
I didn't neg you, would you like me to prove it?


Sorry for the accusation, I just assumed. Really fed up with getting neg rep on these forums for expressing an opinion in discussions. On topic though, why do you disagree with league tables so much? I'm not their biggest fan, but I do feel they can help give some general idea.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App