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

I have come to the conclusion that the Guardian is biased AGAINST Imperial.

The reason is that Imperial has the highest score of 84 for employment, yet in a subsequent article focsuing on employment, it cites the LSE as the top uni, followed by Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Warwick, with NO mention of Imperial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/22/university-graduates-earlier-job-applications#start-of-comments

Hey guys, does anyone know the reason behind Royal Holloway's SUDDEN fall in the league tables? I mean, even in 2008, it was ranked #13 in the UK, despite being a small university and used to be in the top 10 before that. In the world rankings, it came in the top 100, too.

It's really funny how universities like Exeter have climbed at the very top in a short while, while others like Royal Holloway have fallen.

They probably don't count medicine going on to be doctors seeing that's a given with any medical school.

Not sure I follow. Wasn't the score of 84 for all jobs, not just medicine?

That's what I mean. They probably brought the score down from 84 to disclude medicine as it's given they'll get a job anyway and it's unfair advantage against LSE who don't do medicine.

That's what I mean. They probably brought the score down from 84 to disclude medicine as it's given they'll get a job anyway and it's unfair advantage against LSE who don't do medicine.

The quote was London School of Economics, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Warwick had the most success.

I agree LSE don't do medicine but all the others mentioned above do. Given medicine has a near 100% employment record, if they brought down the score for Imperial, they would have had to do the same for the others and therefore relatively, Imperial should, at least, be only worse off than all institutions that DON'T do medicine.

Going further, if you were to "massage" the figures for employment, then why not take into account of the strength and background of the students before they were admitted and adjust those figures accordingly, giving more credit for those educated at a comprehensive and penalise institutions with a high independent school intake?

I think I can answer this for you. The Guardian Employment Prospects league table score counts postgrad students as well as those in jobs, 6 months after graduation. The article refers only to actual employment.

If you look at Unistats, Imperial has 64 % solely working or working and studying with 90% in grad jobs. LSE has 72% solely working or working and studying with 90% in grad jobs.

That isn't surprising. Lots of Imperial graduates stay in science where post-grad qualifications are more necessary.

So essentially the Guardian is comparing apples with pears?

Yes

This year's Times Uni League Tables will be published on 14th June.

Anyone want to predict the top 10?

This year's Times Uni League Tables will be published on 14th June.

Anyone want to predict the top 10?

This year's Times Uni League Tables will be published on 14th June.

Anyone want to predict the top 10?

Do you have a link to last year's table?

Otherwise, why not have a ranking on employers satisfaction as well?

Such data would be extremely hard to collect and quantify, and surely the employment percentage gives a reasonable view as to how satisfied employers are anyway since they won't be employing from universities they aren't satisfied with.

Maybe it is hard but it would be more meaningful to see how others (ie employers) perceive a certain univerisity or degree than to ask the students' themselves as unltimately, they (the students) will be judged by others (be it employers when they seek work or academics if they choose to pursue postgraduate studies).