Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
Interview Discussion 30-01-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Here's the article that explains the bias against smaller universities: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6866395.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.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    Here's the article that explains the bias against smaller universities: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6866395.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.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    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.
    Academics are bound to know a university irrespective of location.

    If your point was valid, then universities like Columbia will be better known than Princeton becauseColumbia is in New York. Universities like NYU will be better known than UPenn or John Hopkins or Chicago because it is labelled as New York's university.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Academics are bound to know a university irrespective of location.

    If your point was valid, then universities like Columbia will be better known than Princeton becauseColumbia is in New York. Universities like NYU will be better known than UPenn or John Hopkins or Chicago because it is labelled as New York's university.

    Single cases prove nothing, good universities are likely to do well irrespective. I don't see your issue with accepting this point, its more or less common sense, some universities are less well known but still have excellent research quality. I know personally 8 Academics, 6 of them proffesors, I think none of them even knew where st andrews was, but they had all heard of leeds. It is diffuclt to gauge the magnitude of this factor, but size and how well known a university will influence the statisctics non the less. It is naive to claim it has no effect whatsoever.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    Single cases prove nothing, good universities are likely to do well irrespective. I don't see your issue with accepting this point, its more or less common sense, some universities are less well known but still have excellent research quality. I know personally 8 Academics, 6 of them proffesors, I think none of them even knew where st andrews was, but they had all heard of leeds. It is diffuclt to gauge the magnitude of this factor, but size and how well known a university will influence the statisctics non the less. It is naive to claim it has no effect whatsoever.
    You really have to stop insulting the intellect of academics with this nonsensical claims. Knowing Leeds does not mean even a layman will think University of Leeds is high quality, talk less of an academic. They know the city does not mean they will think the university is top if it was not.

    Most Ivies are not in major cities and majority of the universities in THE's top spots are not in major cities. They are in small towns like Cambridge (Mass.), Ithaca, New Haven, Princeton, Palo Alto, Michigan, Berkeley, Baltimore etc.

    They are not in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Texas, Houston. If your point was valid, then UCLA, USC, NYU, George Washington, Georgetown, CUNY, Yeshiva, University of Texas, Rice, Loyola etc would be topping the table.

    The London universities are there because they are better in the criteria used, not because they are in London. If universities are good at the criteria, they will be known.

    Your point is completely invalid because I don't know how many people know Brighton that University of Sussex is rated so highly. It is rated above Sheffield, Glasgow, Liverpool and several other London universities which are better know cities and "brighton" is not even in the name of University of Sussex.

    You really have no point, just excuses.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    You really have to stop insulting the intellect of academics with this nonsensical claims. Knowing Leeds does not mean even a layman will think University of Leeds is high quality, talk less of an academic. They know the city does not mean they will think the university is top if it was not.

    Most Ivies are not in major cities and majority of the universities in THE's top spots are not in major cities. They are in small towns like Cambridge (Mass.), Ithaca, New Haven, Princeton, Palo Alto, Michigan, Berkeley, Baltimore etc.

    They are not in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Texas, Houston. If your point was valid, then UCLA, USC, NYU, George Washington, Georgetown, CUNY, Yeshiva, University of Texas, Rice, Loyola etc would be topping the table.

    The London universities are there because they are better in the criteria used, not because they are in London. If universities are good at the criteria, they will be known.

    Your point is completely invalid because I don't know how many people know Brighton that University of Sussex is rated so highly. It is rated above Sheffield, Glasgow, Liverpool and several other London universities which are better know cities and "brighton" is not even in the name of University of Sussex.

    You really have no point, just excuses.
    But not knowing St andrews means you cant say its good... that was my origional point, and no im not insulting any academics by saying this but not everyone knows where every university is and universities like st andres are less likely to be known than leeds because they are smaller and more remote.

    Reeling of a list of contradictions to this point is (no pun intended) pointless, because location is still probably a small factor, and there are many confounding variables (like actual research quality), however it is still a factor none the less, and you cant use a list of examples to disprove it.

    Incidently this is not just my opnion, this is not the first time the international league tables have been critisised, and yes they have also been critised in a similar way, that im doing myself by top academics at top universities. Im not saying incidently the national league tables are perfect either.

    You keep missing my point, so I will say it once again. This is only 1 factor, research intensive universities are still likely to do well, however perhaps not quite as well as those that are in internationaly known locations and have a sizable resarch output. You need to be critical of the league tables, as may people will point out. Hell even QS itself points out some limitations akin to that I have mentioned.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    But not knowing St andrews means you cant say its good... that was my origional point, and no im not insulting any academics by saying this but not everyone knows where every university is and universities like st andres are less likely to be known than leeds because they are smaller and more remote.

    Reeling of a list of contradictions to this point is (no pun intended) pointless, because location is still probably a small factor, and there are many confounding variables (like actual research quality), however it is still a factor none the less, and you cant use a list of examples to disprove it.

    Incidently this is not just my opnion, this is not the first time the international league tables have been critisised, and yes they have also been critised in a similar way, that im doing myself by top academics at top universities. Im not saying incidently the national league tables are perfect either.

    You keep missing my point, so I will say it once again. This is only 1 factor, research intensive universities are still likely to do well, however perhaps not quite as well as those that are in internationaly known locations and have a sizable resarch output. You need to be critical of the league tables, as may people will point out. Hell even QS itself points out some limitations akin to that I have mentioned.
    If you are good at a something, ACADEMICS will know you irrespective of whether you are in Greenlamd, Timbuktu or Ulan Bator.

    If St Andrews is better than Leeds in a topic, academics in that field will know.

    One can easily give an argument that since places like St Andrews, Durham, Warwick and York are repeatedly rated highly in national rankings then academics will be biased to name them (group conformity mentality). That is even a stronger factor than your location argument. Evidence of that is seen several times on TSR. Imagine TSRers thinking UCL is more prestigious than or equally as prestigious as LSE? Because of some silly rankings?

    I have given you several examples of why your location arguments is rubbish, it is up to you to take it or leave it.

    If your argument was the case, University of Sussex will not be rated highly, Edinburgh will not be rated higher than LSE, Columbia will be above Princeton, NYU, UTexas and George Washington will be rated highly in the rankings.

    Your argument is completely invalid and inferior to an argument that national rankings will give some universities a leg up.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    If you are good at a something, ACADEMICS will know you irrespective of whether you are in Greenlamd, Timbuktu or Ulan Bator.

    As already stated I know several academics that do not even know the location of universities such as s.t andrews, and admit well known universities are more likely to be selected (also those with bigger research output too). The Caps lock was entirely unnessecary I know what an academic is.

    If St Andrews is better than Leeds in a topic, academics in that field will know.

    Obviously not necessarily like I said, if you really still dont believe me, look at RAE resarch quality rankings, thats a quantiative and infallable method, unlike a survey. You seem to think academics have a database of universities in their head. NO! they at best are only involved with a selection of universities, one of my relatives for example (Prof.) has been involved with 3 universities in the last 2 years. If they don't know any other universities and have had 0 experience with them, then how can they judge.

    One can easily give an argument that since places like St Andrews, Durham, Warwick and York are repeatedly rated highly in national rankings then academics will be biased to name them (group conformity mentality). That is even a stronger factor than your location argument. Evidence of that is seen several times on TSR. Imagine TSRers thinking UCL is more prestigious than or equally as prestigious as LSE? Because of some silly rankings?
    This may be valid

    I have given you several examples of why your location arguments is rubbish, it is up to you to take it or leave it.
    No you haven't, your examples are repatitive, you do the same thing everytime, say how Academics know the good universities, then list some contradictions. YES academics know whether there universities are good or bad, the ones they have had experience with, but cannot judge others!

    If your argument was the case, University of Sussex will not be rated highly, Edinburgh will not be rated higher than LSE, Columbia will be above Princeton, NYU, UTexas and George Washington will be rated highly in the rankings.
    Contradictions prove nothing as there is more than 1 variable at work here, I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS. YOU CANT USE CONTRADICTIONS AND CORRALATIONS TO DISPROVE SOMETHING with more than 1 factor, I even claimed my factor was not the biggest (actual prestige is probably bigger), any ACADEMIC will tell you that. And FYI Edinburough IS probably rated so highly partly due to this factor mentioned

    Your argument is completely invalid and inferior to an argument that national rankings will give some universities a leg up.

    My argument is not invalid, I just don't think you are bothering to read it. I have had the same invalid rebuttals over and over again, and expect your next post to contain more of the same. Before you reply, read this once again, and make a valid argument.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    x
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    x
    shut up already
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    As already stated I know several academics that do not even know the location of universities such as s.t andrews, and admit well known universities are more likely to be selected (also those with bigger research output too). The Caps lock was entirely unnessecary I know what an academic is.
    The academics you know must be quite unusual - especially within the UK.

    The vast majority of academics will know about the universities conducting research in their area of expertise through attendance at conferences and reading journals.

    They'll also have some idea of the teaching at universities teaching their subjects through the external examiner system that is integral to the UK system - academics visit other universities to review that their marking and course content is on a par with that elsewhere. External examiners going out AND examiners coming IN to a university will both mean that UK academics will be familiar with which universities are particularly good (or bad) at teaching their subject.


    Obviously not necessarily like I said, if you really still dont believe me, look at RAE resarch quality rankings, thats a quantiative and infallable method, unlike a survey.
    :rofl: ummm - do you know what the RAE entailled? It is NOT quantative and it was far from infallable. It gives a *different* measure of research quality to the measures you get from a survey. However the THE survey took plance in spring 2011 while the most "recent" (and last ever) RAE was in 2008 (and measured research outputs from 2001-2007). The RAE only covers UK institutions and only measured research SUBMITTED to it for assessment. I can understand why anyone trying to compile a world wide ranking would want to use something more universal and less self-selecting like the survey of academics.

    Plus the survey is only one of the measures the THE use for research - they give much heavier weighting to citations measures (30% of the score is from this while only 18% is research prestige as measured by the survey)

    they at best are only involved with a selection of universities, one of my relatives for example (Prof.) has been involved with 3 universities in the last 2 years. If they don't know any other universities and have had 0 experience with them, then how can they judge.
    Have you actually spoken to your relative about this - because this is FAR from typical (also does your relative not keep current with research outside of his/her own institution?)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Engineering Table of Times Higher education is released.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ng-and-it.html

    UK's top 5

    Cambridge
    Oxford
    Imperial
    Manchester
    UCL
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I saw another thread like this so... I can't go to an open day cause the unis are really far but what are your opinions?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by POWW!)
    I saw another thread like this so... I can't go to an open day cause the unis are really far but what are your opinions?
    I'd say Leeds
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Probably depends a little on course, but at a (fairly uninformed) glance i'd say: Leeds > Liverpool > UEA
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The course is Maths but according to league tables it's UEA>Leeds>Liverpool

    With Leeds you get a year in industry! but my dad is really against it saying that it's a "****h*le" and that I won't be able to adapt from London which I think is utter bull****
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Visited Leeds and Liverpool.
    Applied to Leeds and visited friends their.
    LOVE IT. Great uni with a fantastic reputation, amazing union, amazing city nightlife, great shops, lovely city.
    Liverpool isn't quite as nice as a city, spent a lot of time there, I love the people though.
    UEA sounds a bit out in the sticks tbh.

    Nightlife go for Leeds imo.

    I AM INCREDIBLY BIASED :P

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 17, 2014
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.