Guardian University League Tables 2017

Are they having a laugh?

City, 18th. KCL, 42nd. Logic redefined.

What's more annoying is that this clearly manipulative piece of propaganda is going to feature in the next prospectus associated with the institutions with inflated places, like Surrey, Lancaster, City, Falmouth, etc. How can they boast about an accolade that's drenched in utter *******s?

Even though it's a bit nonsense...

I'm glad Bristol is number 38.

Im deciding between City or Brunel for Economics at the moment, any insights please?
City seems higher, but I keep hearing not to trust league tables....Plus apparently City has a high failure rate for Econ, but havent seen this on any league tables?

The only rankings that actually matter (if at all) are the international ones

Are you sure? How is, for example, citations/faculty which carries a 20% weighting on QS relevant to an undergrad? On top of a 40% weighting for "academic reputation" which is a similar factor anyway.

You must be really bad at interpreting what people say because I mentioned NOTHING about prestige. Stop twisting my words. I am in AS, I'm applying this year and I'm an international student so I'm unfamiliar with other less (quoting you) "PRESTIGIOUS" universities. If you get so butthurt over something I wasn't even implying well.....good on you. I said NOT to follow league tables in general because they're biased. Learn to read every detail into what someone says before jumping to a conclusion. Also, switching to personal attacks? Typical. I've seen that before.

Although I hope I will have good lecturers (which they seem to be according to friends in the year above, plus 90+ student satisfaction for my course allegedly) - I care much more about the actual prestige of the Uni and consequently the intrinsic links it has with various industries to help obtain certain graduate jobs.

Citations/faculty etc may indeed be less directly useful to an undergrad, but having professors that are the top of the field could prove to be a much more enriching experience. Quite frankly, I find that having 3/8 of the criteria for the Guardian rankings being directly linked to satisfaction quite risible - it's an important factor, yes, but it should only be 1/8. Furthermore, most of the academic literature is already available in various papers, textbooks, etc. either online or at the Universities' respective libraries, so a lot of the actual preparation is what you make of it anyway

You fam, are on FIRE.

sorry That was a bit brash of me, I admit.

Academic "reputation" doesn't equal links to industry. If anything, the former polys and "new" universities have amongst the very best industry links. Maybe Surrey and Lboro's well established work connections are reflected in their rankings.

Citations/faculty etc may indeed be less directly useful to an undergrad, but having professors that are the top of the field could prove to be a much more enriching experience.

sorry That was a bit brash of me, I admit.

I wonder. From experience, how this bears on the undergraduate experience is often that "this module is unavailable in 15/16 as Professor Fancypants has a Leverhulme research grant/is spending a sabbatical year at UC Berkeley".

What a load of ********. Surrey, Loughborough and Lancaster at least 20 places too high. How LSE and UCL can be regarded as being below somewhere like Lancaster is outrageous.

I wonder. From experience, how this bears on the undergraduate experience is often that "this module is unavailable in 15/16 as Professor Fancypants has a Leverhulme research grant/is spending a sabbatical year at UC Berkeley".

St Andrews is 3rd??? Surrey and Loughborough are 4th?! Lancaster is 8th?!?!?!?!?! You must be kidding me please don't follow league tables guys it's a load of marketing and bias.