The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheDubs

Original post by TheDubs
I'd say it happens a fair bit! Although it isnt as dramatic as a someone being rejected for being a uni say below 70th in the rankings, it does undenyably, atleast indirectly, effect the decision making process. Perhaps not so much in an industry, where its grades that would come first. However for most job lines, if they are looking to narrow down applicants (I say that both based on common sense and seeing how the HR department in action one day in work experience!) on things like that. Longlists are there for almost any job, from applying to an office to even your standard working in next job in some area's.

However, thats not to say uni rankings account for that much. Thats just my input.


this data is a bit old but slide 11 is pretty clear on what graduate recruiters do and don't use to filter
Reply 1981
Times Higher Education 2012 World Ranking is out.

Link: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html

Here's UK's Top 10

1.Oxford
2.Cambridge
3.Imperial
4.UCL
5.Edinburgh
6.LSE
7.Manchester
8.KCL
9.Bristol
10.Durham
Reply 1982
Original post by xuntu
Times Higher Education 2012 World Ranking is out.

Link: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html

Here's UK's Top 10

1.Oxford
2.Cambridge
3.Imperial
4.UCL
5.Edinburgh
6.LSE
7.Manchester
8.KCL
9.Bristol
10.Durham



I find it strange that according to this list, Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham and Exeter are all distinctly worse universities than Manchester:s-smilie:
Reply 1983
Original post by fnm
I find it strange that according to this list, Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham and Exeter are all distinctly worse universities than Manchester:s-smilie:


Why finding it strange when from the very first day all of them are being ranked below Manchester in all the International league tables.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by fnm
I find it strange that according to this list, Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham and Exeter are all distinctly worse universities than Manchester:s-smilie:


There is a simple reason for this, Manchester is Huge, warwick isnt. International league tables concentrate more on Citations, research output and alumini. A small university is doomed to do worse in the international rankings despite having a high research quality and doing well in this catogary of the national tables. Small universities dont get the amount of income from alumini either which is something that also that affects it. Personally I think Durham should come higher than 10th, as should warwick.
Original post by QuantumOverlord
There is a simple reason for this, Manchester is Huge, warwick isnt. International league tables concentrate more on Citations, research output and alumini. A small university is doomed to do worse in the international rankings despite having a high research quality and doing well in this catogary of the national tables. Small universities dont get the amount of income from alumini either which is something that also that affects it. Personally I think Durham should come higher than 10th, as should warwick.


I think they take into consideration citations relative to size of university, so I don't think this is a valid point.

The number one ranked university is Caltech and it has only about 2000 students, far less than MIT's 10,000 and Harvard's 21,000.

Princeton with is 7,500 students is ranked higher than Yale with 11,500 students and Berkeley's 36,500.

KCL is roughly the same size as Warwick with 18,000 students. Imperial and LSE are smaller than Warwick with about 13,000 and 9,000 respectively. LSE is at number 40 in the UK in terms of research funding but yet is still ranked far higher.
Original post by LutherVan
I think they take into consideration citations relative to size of university, so I don't think this is a valid point.

The number one ranked university is Caltech and it has only about 2000 students, far less than MIT's 10,000 and Harvard's 21,000.

Princeton with is 7,500 students is ranked higher than Yale with 11,500 students and Berkeley's 36,500.

KCL is roughly the same size as Warwick with 18,000 students. Imperial and LSE are smaller than Warwick with about 13,000 and 9,000 respectively. LSE is at number 40 in the UK in terms of research funding but yet is still ranked far higher.


But at the same time quantity of research is taken into account over quality. There's a very good article on world tables explaining why smaller universities do far worse than they would in domestic tables but I can't find it right now.
Original post by LutherVan
I think they take into consideration citations relative to size of university, so I don't think this is a valid point.

The number one ranked university is Caltech and it has only about 2000 students, far less than MIT's 10,000 and Harvard's 21,000.

Princeton with is 7,500 students is ranked higher than Yale with 11,500 students and Berkeley's 36,500.

KCL is roughly the same size as Warwick with 18,000 students. Imperial and LSE are smaller than Warwick with about 13,000 and 9,000 respectively. LSE is at number 40 in the UK in terms of research funding but yet is still ranked far higher.


Okay thats a fair point, however it doesnt completely invalidate my origional.

For example lets look at QS methodology

40% of the ranking in QS is based on the academic survey, obviously this means that good universities are gonna do well, as academics rate them well. However some universities are not well known, for example Durham is not really known outside of the UK because it is small. The likes of KCL, UCL e.c.t are known because they are in London which is one of the biggest cities in europe, durham by comparison is tiny, the same is true of St andrews and Wariwick.

Lets look at another, citations per faculty counts for 20%, so this will make a difference and larger universities will tend to do better. That is not to say that small universities cannot do well, like you have mentioned, but large faculty univerisities do have an intrinsic advantage, I would guess this may go some way to explain Manchester and Leeds excellent position.

Other factors such as international %, are determined by how well the university is known and size, and even poor universities can do well on such factors.

The bottom line is Durham,Warwick, S.t Andrews > Leeds, Southampton, Manchester Despite the converse positions on the international league tables.
Guys if you are gonna neg my above post, can you kindly explain why?
Original post by QuantumOverlord
Okay thats a fair point, however it doesnt completely invalidate my origional.

For example lets look at QS methodology

40% of the ranking in QS is based on the academic survey, obviously this means that good universities are gonna do well, as academics rate them well. However some universities are not well known, for example Durham is not really known outside of the UK because it is small. The likes of KCL, UCL e.c.t are known because they are in London which is one of the biggest cities in europe, durham by comparison is tiny, the same is true of St andrews and Wariwick.

Lets look at another, citations per faculty counts for 20%, so this will make a difference and larger universities will tend to do better. That is not to say that small universities cannot do well, like you have mentioned, but large faculty univerisities do have an intrinsic advantage, I would guess this may go some way to explain Manchester and Leeds excellent position.

Other factors such as international %, are determined by how well the university is known and size, and even poor universities can do well on such factors.

The bottom line is Durham,Warwick, S.t Andrews > Leeds, Southampton, Manchester Despite the converse positions on the international league tables.


I did not neg you on your post but I can explain you why it is retarded if you care.

Your point about academic survey doesnt hold because the people asked are teachers and they will know about good universities on their subject regarless of their location.

Your point about large universities advantaged when it comes to citation doesnt hold either. Indeed as you mentionned we are talking about citations per faculty which clearly corrects the size bias.

Eventually what you say about international students doesnt hold for the universities you mention as St Andrews, Durham and especially Warwick are filled with international students.

This is not to say that these rankings are fully accurate and I agree with you that Warwick, St Andrews and Durham should feature higher in international rankings however none of the points you mentioned explain their poor performance.
Original post by Frenchous
I did not neg you on your post but I can explain you why it is retarded if you care.

Your point about academic survey doesnt hold because the people asked are teachers and they will know about good universities on their subject regarless of their location.

No it isnt true, the majority of academics asked are proffesors in their field, I am related to 5 proffesors so know what the job is like, although travelling is frequent small universities in other countries are often unheard of, this is particularly true in durham from the europe continent.

Your point about large universities advantaged when it comes to citation doesnt hold either. Indeed as you mentionned we are talking about citations per faculty which clearly corrects the size bias.
It may to some extent, but universities such as St andrews and Durham still have small science faculties for example as opposed to a massive university like Manchester so are necessrily going to achive fewer citations

Eventually what you say about international students doesnt hold for the universities you mention as St Andrews, Durham and especially Warwick are filled with international students.
This slightly misses the point, the point I was making was how well known a university is (which is effectivly what this is) is irrelevant to a universities performance and is purely corralative.

This is not to say that these rankings are fully accurate and I agree with you that Warwick, St Andrews and Durham should feature higher in international rankings however none of the points you mentioned explain their poor performance.


Obviously Im not an expert and welcome your opinion, also I would be interested to know why you think they perform so badly.
Original post by QuantumOverlord
Okay thats a fair point, however it doesnt completely invalidate my origional.

For example lets look at QS methodology

40% of the ranking in QS is based on the academic survey, obviously this means that good universities are gonna do well, as academics rate them well. However some universities are not well known, for example Durham is not really known outside of the UK because it is small. The likes of KCL, UCL e.c.t are known because they are in London which is one of the biggest cities in europe, durham by comparison is tiny, the same is true of St andrews and Wariwick.

Lets look at another, citations per faculty counts for 20%, so this will make a difference and larger universities will tend to do better. That is not to say that small universities cannot do well, like you have mentioned, but large faculty univerisities do have an intrinsic advantage, I would guess this may go some way to explain Manchester and Leeds excellent position.

Other factors such as international %, are determined by how well the university is known and size, and even poor universities can do well on such factors.

The bottom line is Durham,Warwick, S.t Andrews > Leeds, Southampton, Manchester Despite the converse positions on the international league tables.


All methodologies used for ranking has its fault but I disagree with your point that universities in London are ranked high because they are in London. They are ranked high because they are good according to the criteria used. I don't think Academics are as fickle to the point they rate a university high or know it because of the city it is in. They are in a circle that know what universities are good at, if a university is good at something and located in Greenland, they are likely to know.

Bristol is not in a popular city but yet is rated highly. In the same QS ranking, Bristol and Warwick are ranked higher than LSE in Academic Reputation. I think we all know that is ridiculous. That says much about your argument that being in London helps.

Manchester is a solid university for research that is why Academics know it. Not because of the city it is in.

The citation per faculty is calculated per faculty member, so size is virtually irrelevant.

I think the international rankings, despite their faults are better than the national ones (that use things like "student satisfaction", "spend on facilities" etc) for academic judgement.
Original post by LutherVan
All methodologies used for ranking has its fault but I disagree with your point that universities in London are ranked high because they are in London. They are ranked high because they are good according to the criteria used. I don't think Academics are as fickle to the point they rate a university high or know it because of the city it is in. They are in a circle that know what universities are good at, if a university is good at something and located in Greenland, they are likely to know.

Bristol is not in a popular city but yet is rated highly. In the same QS ranking, Bristol and Warwick are ranked higher than LSE in Academic Reputation. I think we all know that is ridiculous. That says much about your argument that being in London helps.

Manchester is a solid university for research that is why Academics know it. Not because of the city it is in.

The citation per faculty is calculated per faculty member, so size is virtually irrelevant.

I think the international rankings, despite their faults are better than the national ones (that use things like "student satisfaction", "spend on facilities" etc) for academic judgement.


The point im gonna make here is, Manchester, ICL, UCL, e.t.c are obviously fantastic univerisites otherwise they wouldnt be so high in the table. However at the same time being in London probably does give a boost for proffesors, knowing proffesors myself, knowing the university exists is a big help. Obviously terrible universities in big cities are never gonna get near the top. However it is nevertheless a factor and it should be considered. Despite all this I would still say that ICL, UCL, LSE are amoung the best universities in the country.
Original post by QuantumOverlord
The point im gonna make here is, Manchester, ICL, UCL, e.t.c are obviously fantastic univerisites otherwise they wouldnt be so high in the table. However at the same time being in London probably does give a boost for proffesors, knowing proffesors myself, knowing the university exists is a big help. Obviously terrible universities in big cities are never gonna get near the top. However it is nevertheless a factor and it should be considered. Despite all this I would still say that ICL, UCL, LSE are amoung the best universities in the country.


The reason London universities are good is not because they are known for being in London. The only advantage location can give them is they are able to attract top academics to that location. That still means they have better professors and perform better academically.

A lot of TSRers opinions about universities is distortingly skewed by rankings (especially local rankings), in the real world, there are universities with long historical reputation that is had to be beaten in the real world. For example in the real world, to the people that matter, UCL is seen as inferior to LSE. York is inferior to Manchester despite Manchester not being ever ranked in the Top 20 in local rankings etc.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by QuantumOverlord
However some universities are not well known, for example Durham is not really known outside of the UK because it is small.


To put simply, obviously Durham is not offering the world as much as universities who are well known.
Original post by billydisco
To put simply, obviously Durham is not offering the world as much as universities who are well known.


If that were the case, why does Durham, S.T andrews, Warick have such High research quality, teaching standars, entry requirments e.c.t. The bottom line is how will known a university is will affect the world rankings, and there are other factors that can influence this apart from prestige such as the city e.t.c.
Here's the article that explains the bias against smaller universities: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/sunday_times_university_guide/article6866395.ece

You could also argue that institutions like St Andrews and Durham are more interested in teaching undergraduates than post-graduate research, and that a world class researcher might not even make an average teacher.
Original post by QuantumOverlord
If that were the case, why does Durham, S.T andrews, Warick have such High research quality, teaching standars, entry requirments e.c.t. The bottom line is how will known a university is will affect the world rankings, and there are other factors that can influence this apart from prestige such as the city e.t.c.


The only thing I can think of are hollywood films constantly being paid to mention MIT or Harvard in the scripts......

Besides that, the universities who are due their credit get it. Imperial is pretty small compared with warwick in terms of student numbers. Why does Imperial get so much recognition internationally?

LSE is completely overrated in my opinion, so to see it much lower in international ranks doesnt surprise me. They seem to think because they offer a degree to any world leader's relative they are special.
Original post by simon-leeds
Here's the article that explains the bias against smaller universities: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/sunday_times_university_guide/article6866395.ece

You could also argue that institutions like St Andrews and Durham are more interested in teaching undergraduates than post-graduate research, and that a world class researcher might not even make an average teacher.


This is what I roughly said in a previous post, however it got negged 6 times. I really don't understand all the critism.
Original post by billydisco
The only thing I can think of are hollywood films constantly being paid to mention MIT or Harvard in the scripts......

Besides that, the universities who are due their credit get it. Imperial is pretty small compared with warwick in terms of student numbers. Why does Imperial get so much recognition internationally?


LSE is completely overrated in my opinion, so to see it much lower in international ranks doesnt surprise me. They seem to think because they offer a degree to any world leader's relative they are special.



Because it is a good university, good universities are bound to do well. However it is also in London, one of the biggest cities in Europe, so academics are bound to know where and what it is. Compared to Durham which is located in a small city in a less known part of England. Although this may not affect it much, It will affect it none the less, and this is why the likes of warwick, Durham and S.t andrews perform so badly in the international league tables, warick is particularly remote for example.

NB: Durham is not as good as ICL, I know this but it isnt as bad as made out in the international league tables.