University of Bristol

Bristol

Why is a prestigious UNI like Bristol so low in rankings?

Scroll to see replies

I said that there was a thread that had universities in tiers, where KCL was not a tier 2 University. I was just repeating what I read from another thread.

I maintain my point that Manchester appears to have a bad time in local rankings with favourable view towards oxbridge and south of england universities.

Actually KCL were, I saw the thread to

First tier were Oxbridge

2nd tier were all the Top Russell group Uni's

University of Bristol

Bristol

Reply 21

Danny the Geezer

Original post by SayoniRoy

I don't think manchester should be within tier 2.

So you're saying it should be lower or higher in ranking?

Reply 22

Wired_1800

Original post by Vividly clear

Actually KCL were, I saw the thread to

First tier were Oxbridge

2nd tier were all the Top Russell group Uni's

My bad. Sorry then.

I was looking for the thread to see what the tiers were again.

My original point was that many universities in the UK move up and down the ranking without control.

Only very few Universities with strong reputation maintained a relatively higher position across the board. That being said, I think that Manchester seems to have a hard time on UK rankings.

Reply 23

SayoniRoy

Original post by Danny the Geezer

So you're saying it should be lower or higher in ranking?

He mentioned in his answer that it is par with imperial, ucl and lse. I don't think so. That's all.

Reply 24

Wired_1800

Original post by SayoniRoy

If you are talking of global rank kcl is ranked higher than manchester, now according to you it should be in tier 2 then

I think that another post has pointed out that KCL is indeed in tier 2.

My original point was that many universities tend to go up and down the table a lot, but very few Universities with strong reputations tend to maintain that ranking locally and globally.

It is ridiculous that Manchester is poorly ranked in the UK, but year on year it maintains a relatively high rank in international tables; even better than Universities that are ranked above it in the UK.

Reply 25

Danny the Geezer

Original post by SayoniRoy

He mentioned in his answer that it is par with imperial, ucl and lse. I don't think so. That's all.

Those three are London-based institutions with arguably more specialised degrees, Manchester is a very good university (I don't think anyone will deny that) just because it's a provincial, more conventional uni I think doesn't make it any stonger or weaker than the ones you mentioned.

Reply 26

Armpits

Original post by Wired_1800

Those Universities tend to move up and down the ranking tables like the rest.

Kings College and Nottingham have good reputations, but, to me, they don't have that solid reputation of the top tier universities that Oxbridge, Manchester, UCL, LSE and Imperial have. You cannot go wrong with them, but they are definitely not at the top of the pack.

There was another thread that had UK Universities in Tiers with Oxbridge as a Tier 1 University, while I think UCL, Manchester, LSE and Imperial were labelled as Tier 2. Then the list goes down. I think KCL and Nottingham were Tier 3 or something like that.

Sometimes, it baffles me to see a random University in the top 10 overall best in the UK but not even in the top 300 of the World's Best Universities.

You're definitely a Manchester student lol.

No way you can put that C grade accepting university in the same sentence as Oxbridge, UCL, LSE and Imperial.

Only acceptable one is Warwick, maybe Bath.

KCL/Manchester/Nottingham are pretty much equal for most courses (with some exceptions especially for non-STEM courses). Nottingham is the most selective out of the three (and I got into KCL).

Reply 27

stratagems

Meh, let's stop discussing Manchester when the thread is about Bristol and it keeps fluctuating & is low in the same way as Manchester does...

I think it's good to differentiate 'prestige' or 'reputation' with rankings, as rankings take into account student satisfaction (which is why Imperial sometimes comes lower than it perhaps 'ought' to do) and research output, which isn't really relevant to undergraduates.*

It's really odd, because when I was in sixth form (a hot house private school that was obsessed with it's top 3 position in rankings), Bristol was within the top 6 in terms of reputation/prestige, but has just steadily gone down while Durham remains constant and so does UCL. Bristol was the place you went to if you didn't go to Oxbridge, LSE, or Imperial (maybe slightly above UCL and Durham -- reminder, this was at the time!!!).

I think LSE and Imperial are similar in that they specialise in either social sciences OR science & so will always be good.

Bristol ranks quite low for law, which is a little worrying, but I don't know. The admissions tutors consist of an Oxbridge graduate (of both!) who's on the steering group for LNATs & a Nottingham graduate which is high for law, so I imagine the rest of the faculty are from prestigious unis too.*

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 28

Random_PC_Errors

According to the Guardian Surrey is 4th, ahead off: Imperial, Durham, Warwick, Bath, LSE, UCL, York, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield... the list goes on.

The league tables methodology uses variables that you (or an employer) will have no interest in. Student satisfaction, value added etc. all benefit lower ranked Universities. I think I even saw one table that rated Universities on how energy effifcant they are. As if an employer gives gives a ****.

The consensus is that the national league tables are flawed.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 29

Duncan2012

Original post by Random_PC_Errors

The league tables methodology uses variables that you (or an employer) will have no interest in. Student satisfaction, value added etc. all benefit lower ranked Universities. I think I even saw one table that rated Universities on how energy effifcant they are. As if an employer gives gives a ****.

The consensus is that the national league tables are flawed.

Not necessarily flawed, just meaningless. It would be like producing a league table of cars. A Ferrari isn't the best answer if you're wanting to pull a horsebox.

Reply 30

TheThiefOfBagdad

Original post by Duncan2012

Not necessarily flawed, just meaningless. It would be like producing a league table of cars. A Ferrari isn't the best answer if you're wanting to pull a horsebox.

Right? Everyone knows Lambos are best for pulling livestock!

Reply 31

Old Mum

Bringing the discussion back to Bristol, it is whammied in the UK league tables by very poor student satisfaction ratings. I queried this with the uni - they said it was primarily due to the student union needing refurbishment (now done) and because the SU building is poorly located - up a hill away from the uni and the main phlanx of halls.

I think the disparity between the domestic and international tables to be interesting and think both have their value in making an overall decision. Interestingly you will find more state school educated pupils take notice of the UK tables eg, Surrey, a relatively newcomer to the top 10 UK unis has over 90% state school intake, whereas private schools gravitate towards the more traditionally prestigious unis with higher international rankings eg 60% of Bristol's intake is private school (second only I think to Oxford). Thus a snob/prestige value is still associated with these unis which employers (like it or not) take notice of....

Also worth looking at is the annual Highflyers report - gives a list of the unis most visited by Milkround employers. Interestingly, the most visited unis are the older prestigious ones as well as the ones conveniently located in a central position eg. Birmingham. Places like Exeter and Surrey dont get much of a look in.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 32

Wired_1800

Original post by Armpits

I am not a Manchester student. I was just pointing out how flaw national rankings were and how unfavourable they are to Manchester.

I think that Manchester gets a lot of bashing both on TSR and around, even though it is a top tier university. Someone has called Manchester, a poor man's Cambridge, which is offensive to Manchester students.

A poster just mentioned how the Guardian placed Surrey as the 4th Best University in the UK above Imperial and other clearly better Universities. When I checked international rankings, Surrey was not even in the Top 300 Best Universities.

My main point is that Manchester is indeed a top tier University. Yes, it does accept C's in some courses, but so do other Universities. Internationally, it is ranked as 33rd in the world.

To the original point (sorry OP). Bristol is a decent University, but I don't think it was the school for those, who could not get into Oxbridge. I think that school was Durham (sorry to any Durham students).

There has been names through around including

1. Boxbridge (Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge)
2. Impbridge (Imperial and Cambridge)
3. Doxbridge (Durham, Oxford and Cambridge)
4. Woxbridge (Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge)
5. Loxbridge (LSE, Oxford and Cambridge)

Reply 33

stratagems

Original post by Wired_1800

Hmm. As a student in the South East, specifically London, with both a state and private school background, I can comprehensively state that Manchester is well regarded and in the same grouping as, say, Bristol, KCL, UCL in no particular order of hierarchy.

Reply 34

user 42005

Bristol suffers because the national league tables take crap like student satisfaction into account, thus making it difficult to render objectively how good each university is (i.e. for it to be a good, prestigious university that puts out high quality research it doesn't have to be 'satisfying' for student x).

In my opinion, the prestige/'good' uni rankings are something along the lines of:

Tier 1:
Oxbridge

Tier 2:
LSE/Imperial (depending on whether you are doing science or social sciences)

Tier 3:
UCL/Warwick
St Andrews
Durham

Tier 4:
Edinburgh/Bristol/KCL/Nottingham/Bath
Manchester
York
Exeter

Tier 5:
et al

Beyond a certain point it gets hard to rank, and obviously individual rankings are debatable, but this is my estimate.

Reply 35

_Fergo

Original post by JRKinder

In what way are Warwick/St Andrews/Durham above KCL/Nottingham/Bristol/Edinburgh though (especially Warwick and St Andrews)?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

Wired_1800

Original post by stratagems

Fair enough. Manchester is a strong university that needs more respect than people accord to it.

The sad truth is that Manchest's size (approx 38,500) students knocks its performance.

Reply 37

Pinkberry_y

Who says Bristol is really that prestigious?

Reply 38

anonwinner

Original post by Wired_1800

I suggest that you don't look deep into national rankings. Some are very subjective and others appear biased.

Other than Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Imperial, LSE and UCL, those Universities move up and down the rankings based on who is doing the ranking.

Just look at the quality of your course and the overall decency of the University, that is if you are not studying in the Universities mentioned above.