Scroll to see replies
Original post by chopkins1997
the titler is my question
My only advice would be if you must, use the international ones. Not the national ones.
Original post by chopkins1997
the titler is my question
They can be, and often youll find a uni ranks similarly across several league tables. However they can be influenced by so many factors that you might not have considered or don't care about so take this into account. I think it's more important to find somewhere youre gunna be happy at than to choose somewhere based on where its ranked in the year you apply...
Original post by Jbird1
They can be, and often youll find a uni ranks similarly across several league tables. However they can be influenced by so many factors that you might not have considered or don't care about so take this into account. I think it's more important to find somewhere youre gunna be happy at than to choose somewhere based on where its ranked in the year you apply...
I agree being happy with the course and environment is the key. Are the tables accurate. They are to large degree. They use different factors in coming to a decision such as teaching standards, entry grades, quality of leaving degree, student satisfaction etc but what has happened despite all this only 1 university has entered the top 10 in the last year. The following have been in the top 12 of almost every league table in the last 5 years Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE,UCL, Durham, StAndrews, Warwick, Bath, Exeter and Lancaster. Subject league tables are less reliable as they fluctuate greatly. However they are not accurate enough to be able to say 8th is better than 9th and to be honest the difference between any of the top 30 or so will be small anyway.
The raw data that they use is, in most cases, reliable (though this can be disputed with the student satisfaction ratings, due to methodological flaws). However, they all put different data sets together (with varying levels of relevance to undergraduates), giving them different weightings, and come out with... erm... a number that doesn't actually mean anything.
This is a a great post that explains it all in more detail http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1096372
This is a a great post that explains it all in more detail http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1096372
Original post by chopkins1997
the titler is my question
Yes if you only look at entry standards & research score. Everything else is bogus.
Original post by Black Cobra
Yes if you only look at entry standards & research score. Everything else is bogus.
So if a new university set itself up and required A*A*A* across all courses then it would be the best? And let's say their sole researcher landed a small research project and got a 4* rating for it...
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Black Cobra
Yes if you only look at entry standards & research score. Everything else is bogus.
Entry standards is a reasonable reflection of the UCAS points that students on that course have (insofar as students actually declare all of the things that get them points on their UCAS form). It is not, however, an accurate representation of what is required to get in - this is because students will frequently list things on their UCAS form that are irrelevant and unis don't care about but which attract UCAS points (e.g. pony care or music grades).
Given that universities can choose what they submit to the REF, they will make a tactical submission according to whether they think they can do better with quality or quantity. It's by far the best way we have of comparing different universities' research output, but it's not entirely representative.
Also, ditto what jneill said.
Original post by jneill
So if a new university set itself up and required A*A*A* across all courses then it would be the best? And let's say their sole researcher landed a small research project and got a 4* rating for it...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
You've committed a logical fallacy there mate.
It's simple Supply & Demand. Nobody is going to apply to a brand new university that requires A*A*A*. They'd have no students. So ofc they wouldnt be the best.
Anyone else want to try?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Black Cobra
You've committed a logical fallacy there mate.
It's simple Supply & Demand. Nobody is going to apply to a brand new university that requires A*A*A*. They'd have no students. So ofc they wouldnt be the best.
Anyone else want to try?
It's simple Supply & Demand. Nobody is going to apply to a brand new university that requires A*A*A*. They'd have no students. So ofc they wouldnt be the best.
Anyone else want to try?
Ah ok so now you want to add "number of students", and "year founded" to your criteria. Anything else?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
Ah ok so now you want to add "number of students", and "year founded" to your criteria. Anything else?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
You're splitting hairs. To be ranked, implicitly the university needs to be established.
Original post by Nameless Ghoul
You're splitting hairs.
Yes. It wasn't me that said only 2 of the commonly used ranking criteria are not "bogus".
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chopkins1997
the titler is my question
Reliable for what exactly?
Original post by jneill
Yes. It wasn't me that said only 2 of the commonly used ranking criteria are not "bogus".
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Wasn't me either.
Just because the other poster's comment was silly doesn't make your rebuttal any less illogical.
As I saw elsewhere, the rankings that can't be fixed are staff:student ratio, spend per student, drop out rate and end results (% of 2:1 degrees or higher and employability)
Things such as entry standards markedly vary between advertised standards, offers and accepted places and a lot of research stats are subjective
Things such as entry standards markedly vary between advertised standards, offers and accepted places and a lot of research stats are subjective
Original post by jneill
So if a new university set itself up and required A*A*A* across all courses then it would be the best? And let's say their sole researcher landed a small research project and got a 4* rating for it...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Black Cobra
You've committed a logical fallacy there mate.
It's simple Supply & Demand. Nobody is going to apply to a brand new university that requires A*A*A*. They'd have no students. So ofc they wouldnt be the best.
Anyone else want to try?
It's simple Supply & Demand. Nobody is going to apply to a brand new university that requires A*A*A*. They'd have no students. So ofc they wouldnt be the best.
Anyone else want to try?
But isn't that exactly what York did with its new law faculty?
They hired in a bunch of barely known academics but who were likely to get a good REF score in "sexy" topics that would attract a high "impact" score.
These are the 10 names they submitted for REF
http://results.ref.ac.uk/Submissions/StaffList/2343
These are the papers they submitted
http://results.ref.ac.uk/Submissions/OutputsList/2343?SearchId=SearchId
These are the 38 current members of the faculty
https://www.york.ac.uk/law/staff/#tab-1
https://www.york.ac.uk/law/staff/#tab-2
How many of these names would the average law student recognise?
Then look how this faculty is currently ranked in research quality
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Research+Quality&s=law
As you can see York surpassed both Oxford and Cambridge
Here are the 112 names Oxford submitted
http://results.ref.ac.uk/Submissions/StaffList/777
There are plenty of names familiar to law students there
York opened this shiny new law school in 2008 wanting AAA grades. That was at a time when Reading, Kent and Leicester with far stronger faculties and well established courses were seeking AAB.
Reading, York, Kent and Leicester were all then 1994 Group members.
Original post by Colinj451
As I saw elsewhere, the rankings that can't be fixed are staff:student ratio, spend per student, drop out rate and end results (% of 2:1 degrees or higher and employability)
Things such as entry standards markedly vary between advertised standards, offers and accepted places and a lot of research stats are subjective
Things such as entry standards markedly vary between advertised standards, offers and accepted places and a lot of research stats are subjective
Spending is a very unreliable indicator.
There are a number of problems.
Firstly it is usually divided between facilities spending and academic services spending but that is an arbitrary distinction. If you take the library cleaning staff; at university A they are paid on a cleaning budget and at university B they are paid on a library budget. At A that cleaning is facilities spending. At B, it is academic services spending. But these are the same cleaners with the same mops and brushes. Many of the costs of university can be booked to different budgets depending how the university wishes to do it.
Secondly, large costs may benefit only a tiny proportion of students. If university A has some "big ticket" physics equipment costing millions of pounds and university B specialises in theoretical physics and spends £500 on pencils and chalk each year, that doesn't really impact on how well stocked the law library happens to be.
The proof of the pudding is the wildly different spending figures for superficially similar institutions.
Sheffield Hallam and Leeds Beckett are virtually twins; large Yorkshire ex-Polys yet Hallam supposedly spends £1455 on academic services. Leeds spends £860. Are the handouts, illuminated manuscripts at Hallam?
Bishop Grossteste is an Anglican teacher training college in Lincoln. Newman is a Catholic one in Birmingham. I accept buildings in Birmingham and perhaps staff salaries will be higher but the difference is £355 to £1055.
Do we really think Middlesex University (£2277) spends more on academic services than Imperial (£2144)? And what about Kingston; they are virtually next door to one another and both ex-Polys. It can deliver what costs Middlesex over £2K for £1110.
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Academic+Services+Spend&v=wide
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Spending is a very unreliable indicator.
There are a number of problems.
Firstly it is usually divided between facilities spending and academic services spending but that is an arbitrary distinction. If you take the library cleaning staff; at university A they are paid on a cleaning budget and at university B they are paid on a library budget. At A that cleaning is facilities spending. At B, it is academic services spending. But these are the same cleaners with the same mops and brushes. Many of the costs of university can be booked to different budgets depending how the university wishes to do it.
Secondly, large costs may benefit only a tiny proportion of students. If university A has some "big ticket" physics equipment costing millions of pounds and university B specialises in theoretical physics and spends £500 on pencils and chalk each year, that doesn't really impact on how well stocked the law library happens to be.
The proof of the pudding is the wildly different spending figures for superficially similar institutions.
Sheffield Hallam and Leeds Beckett are virtually twins; large Yorkshire ex-Polys yet Hallam supposedly spends £1455 on academic services. Leeds spends £860. Are the handouts, illuminated manuscripts at Hallam?
Bishop Grossteste is an Anglican teacher training college in Lincoln. Newman is a Catholic one in Birmingham. I accept buildings in Birmingham and perhaps staff salaries will be higher but the difference is £355 to £1055.
Do we really think Middlesex University (£2277) spends more on academic services than Imperial (£2144)? And what about Kingston; they are virtually next door to one another and both ex-Polys. It can deliver what costs Middlesex over £2K for £1110.
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Academic+Services+Spend&v=wide
There are a number of problems.
Firstly it is usually divided between facilities spending and academic services spending but that is an arbitrary distinction. If you take the library cleaning staff; at university A they are paid on a cleaning budget and at university B they are paid on a library budget. At A that cleaning is facilities spending. At B, it is academic services spending. But these are the same cleaners with the same mops and brushes. Many of the costs of university can be booked to different budgets depending how the university wishes to do it.
Secondly, large costs may benefit only a tiny proportion of students. If university A has some "big ticket" physics equipment costing millions of pounds and university B specialises in theoretical physics and spends £500 on pencils and chalk each year, that doesn't really impact on how well stocked the law library happens to be.
The proof of the pudding is the wildly different spending figures for superficially similar institutions.
Sheffield Hallam and Leeds Beckett are virtually twins; large Yorkshire ex-Polys yet Hallam supposedly spends £1455 on academic services. Leeds spends £860. Are the handouts, illuminated manuscripts at Hallam?
Bishop Grossteste is an Anglican teacher training college in Lincoln. Newman is a Catholic one in Birmingham. I accept buildings in Birmingham and perhaps staff salaries will be higher but the difference is £355 to £1055.
Do we really think Middlesex University (£2277) spends more on academic services than Imperial (£2144)? And what about Kingston; they are virtually next door to one another and both ex-Polys. It can deliver what costs Middlesex over £2K for £1110.
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Academic+Services+Spend&v=wide
Hi! I agree with a little bit of what you said (the example you gave about the library is really good) but normally rankings rank separatly spending per student and facilities spending, so in my opinion with this separate spending criteria they rank in a good way the spending of each institution.
About middlesex university (when compared with king's and imperial) I must say that it is 100% truth. It is one of the universities that spend more money with their students. I study at UCL and I have some friends who study at Middlesex and they have free printing, free course materials, free field trips, much more scholarships than UCL, etc etc... So as you see, despite Middlesex is an ex-poly they really care about their students.... King's is one of the best unis in the UK and at the same time it is one of the worst unis for student satisfaction because they just care about research and reputation - they really don't care about their students. And Middlesex has improved like 20 places a year in several rankings and it is well deserved...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- .
- For those applying for Graphic Design, Illustration, Vis Com courses
- ucas rank or guardian rank
- Guardian/Daily Mail Uni/Times Rankings 2024
- Which offer should I accept?
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- Durham or Warwick
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- firm choice?
- Is University of Law an actual university?
- Complete University Guide Table 2024
- university rankings
- University Rankings Herriot Watt, Dundee or Strathclyde
- geography application
- Does anyone know how reliable the Guardian's 'Average UCAS Score' section is?
- Aston or UWE?
- Can I study maths without further maths at a top 10 uni?
- What university should I go to?
- Which is the best universities in UK
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
