[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by *Hakz*)
Do you even have any clue about what russell group is?

Anyway I think this new 2013 one is the worse I've seen so far from the complete university guide.

I mean who would go that far to rate Oxford economics higher than Cambridge's when Oxford don't even offer straight economics.
And I don't understand how LSE is ranked above Oxford overall?

Even the top 10 maths table is laughable. Oxford above Cambridge? St Andrews and Durham above Imperial?

Unfortunately league table uses rigorous methology while you are using vague prestige and word of mouth. Neither are ideal, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to a result derived scientifically.

The irony is you may even be right, but claiming it with no evidence (or even worse cherry picking which happens all the time here) wont convince me.

"League tables are ****, and inaccurate" provokes the response, "not half as inaccurate as your unjustified opinion based on prestige!"

[QuantumOverlord]

I challenge you to make your own, using well defined and relevant criteria, i.e a quantitative study. If you can do this I applaud you, and I also expect you will get some suprises the reason for this is because different universities do better based on slightly different criteria, but if it was so simple t o weed out the criteria, then there would only be a need for one type of methology. NB: Oxbridge uniformally come out on top for all the league tables, so it is easy to justify these are the best two universities in the UK.

Disclaimer: I never claim League tables are perfect, in fact far from so. But they are better at gaining a rough idea of the quality of a university than going after a vauge ghost quantity like 'prestige'. Other valid methods include looking at individual criteria such as research quality.

[Oh my Ms. Coffey]

I'd rank them on Male:Female ratio and pick the ones at which you are playing the best odds.

[Mero8]

Perhaps they are misleading because they are so glorified. There shouldn't be a "league table", there should be many league tables on different aspects i.e. student satisfaction, research, tutor:student ratio etc... so people can differentiate based on what they want out of a University.

Also, if there is an overall league table they should combine Universities i.e. this group of universities are ranked 1-5, these are ranked 6-10 etc... as there is always discrepancy between league tables from different sites, although the Universities are usually in a near position in both league tables.

[RamocitoMorales]

Why would I make my own league table if said that they were 'crap'?

[ifstatement]

You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by ifstatement)
You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...

I am in university, but that doesnt matter so much to the point I am making. I never claimed either, that league tables matter hugely from an employability point of view (though I didn't argue the converse either), my argument was simply that a quantitative study such as the league tables are far better than trying to judge a university based on word of mouth and prestige.

[vedderfan94]

I wouldn't say ALL league tables are absolute rubbish. International tables tend to use more important data to rank universities (rather than student:staff ratios...).

Some domestic tables are ridiculous though. On The Times' league table, Sheffield is ranked higher than Imperial for Physics. LOLWUT?

[Billton]

I didn't even bother with the league tables when I was applying for University. Most people at my college either went purely for the EMA (back in the day!) or did a BTEC in Media. There wasn't that much encouragement about applying for University, and since I wanted to stay in Manchester, it was always going to be a toss-up between UoM and MMU.

about 30 of my friends did BTEC Media and loved it. I starred in many music videos and interviews. The point I am making is that none of them really bothered with applying to University!

[007dunlop]

(Original post by Onewingedangel)
How no?
The only UK universities that have international renown are Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial college.
Nobody outside the UK recognizes UCL.

I did an american exchange to California in august 2011 and stayed with a family. The dad of the family worked at UC Berkeley in the medical department. I asked for his opinion as to the international recognition of UCL and he said that as far as the USA goes, UCL is well known in the states (and amongst the US universities) mainly for it's excellence in medicine and science.

He recommended I accept my offer there as it would put me in good stead for employment.

So your point is completely ignorant and you clearly have no real world examples of your claim that 'Nobody outside the UK knows UCL'.

[KCosmo]

Isnt that the point though, that every league table is crap, not due to the incompetence of the people that make them, but due to the fact that there are too many variables that contribute to whether a uni is good or not to be able to realistically measure them all?

A rough guide is the best you can hope for!

[Architecture-er]

I thought the whole reason we think league tables are crap is because they're trying to quantify something that is, inherently, qualitative?

[TheWorldEndsWithMe]

I don't think league tables are rubbish, but there should be an easier way to compare different things easily eg student satisfaction, employment rate after graduating, staff:student, male:female ratio etc.

[bertstare]

(Original post by TheWorldEndsWithMe)
So basically, 'vocational' subjects are the best?



Anyway. I don't think league tables are rubbish, but there should be an easier way to compare different things easily eg student satisfaction, employment rate after graduating, staff:student, male:female ratio etc.

Pretty much, hardest to get in to, best job/earning prospects, most respected

[KCosmo]

(Original post by ifstatement)
You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...

They don't matter at all for courses like medicine

[Mero8]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
I thought the whole reason we think league tables are crap is because they're trying to quantify something that is, inherently, qualitative?

This - great response. I'd +ve rep you but I've run out for the day

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by balletlover)
How can you make a league table if you haven't visited every university yourself anyway...

If you are familiar with research science it is possible. In the same way you can form a meta anaysis of RCTs you could collect the data from the universities and perform statistical calculations on them. In fact you could even get it published if your methology is excellent, but it would never be easy like I say.

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
I thought the whole reason we think league tables are crap is because they're trying to quantify something that is, inherently, qualitative?

Many things that appear qualitative at first glance, can intrinsically be expressed quantitativly. Look at all the scientific papers on psycology for example.

As for university quality, you can obviously asgin numerical values to important variables such as research quality. The statistical calculations are difficult and how you perform them, but it is doable.

[Dr Good Manners]

I'm so pleased to see that someone FINALLY recognises there's more value in Engineering than Law

[QuantumOverlord]

(Original post by vedderfan94)
I wouldn't say ALL league tables are absolute rubbish. International tables tend to use more important data to rank universities (rather than student:staff ratios...).

Some domestic tables are ridiculous though. On The Times' league table, Sheffield is ranked higher than Imperial for Physics. LOLWUT?

Again this is the kind of thinking I try to attack in my OP. Yes sheffield is probably not as good as IC, and that generally shows with IC being alot higher in most league tables. However you cannot simply discard one league table on this premise, they will all have elements of validity - if you want to discuss how inaccurate a league table is, back yourself up with evidence i.e dont use anicdotal evidence (University X is better than Y) - CERTAINLY avoid comparing to prestige, and look at the actual methology.