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

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.

But not the point of infallibility. Universities are only as good as the students who attend them, and so they're inherently flawed because they're primarily being ranked on arbitrary aspects (such as 'student satisfaction'). They're fine for a general overview, but when it comes down to deciding the order of the top 15, it's widely open to interpretation.

For example, my university (Bath) is ranked top in the country for Architecture, but it's primarily carried by employability after graduation, whilst Cambridge are 2nd but have higher average A-level graded students and better research scores

In the most recent CUG league table, Oxford was placed 3rd right below LSE.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?

This is the first time where oxford is out of the top 2 in the domestic league table. Could that mean the gap between oxbridge and other unis is starting to close?

Im going to make an important point here before I do though ill give a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: I am in no way making any conclusions of universities based on this data, I have my own personal opinions which I will not disclose (they are irrelevant). The point I make is based purely on this league table, and does NOT reflect my opinions on the university.


If you look at the actual ppts of the rankings, you will see that the top 5 have all either risen, or stayed so high they have met a celing effect. For example Durham was 5th place in the 2012 tables, and 5th in the 2013 however it has risen from 890 to 912 ppts, a significant rise. The same is true of LSE and IC; Oxbridge doesnt have much hope of rising on this relative system due to the ceiling effect. My point is, there is evidence of an increase in quality (as measured by this league table) for all of the top 5 universities. This should be taken into account. Also when I say 'top 5' please See my disclaimer.

Durham has only risen from 890 to 912 because of an increase in entry standards, nothing else has improved. In fact, I'm guessing that's the only reason why Durham is 5th.

I don't understand why people constantly bash durham with little or no evidence (see bold). However I'll be willing to accept those claims, if you can back them up with evidence.

and FYI getting 912/1000 is not possible just with good entry requirements.

In the most recent CUG league table, Oxford was placed 3rd right below LSE.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?

This is the first time where oxford is out of the top 2 in the domestic league table. Could that mean the gap between oxbridge and other unis is starting to close?

2013 Durham

Entry standards 2013 (501) 2012- 487
Student Satisfaction 2013 (4.1) 4.0
Research Assessment 2013( 2.72) 2.72
Graduate Prospects 2013- (78.5) 80.4

As you can see student satisfaction has gone up only marginally. RAE has stayed the same. Graduate prospects has gone down, so clearly its the entry standards which has pushed Durham up from 890 to 915 in the past year. Graduate prospects appears to be given a large weighting, as St Andrews beats out Durham on two counts (entry standards and student satisfaction and they're tied on research. Durham's research doesn't even hit the 2.8 mark, look at the gap between it and the top 4 (2.98, 2.98, 2.96.2.96 and then 2.72.. I'm not really meaning to bash Durham, but I just don't think that its any better than UCL, Warwick or St Andrews. In regards to the data, I think a top 4 would be more apt.

No, you're clearly the one who should be taking GCSE's if you can't distinguish the difference between what I said, and saying that LSE is a job factory.

From what I've heard from people who go there that is the opinion I've formed. Feel free to correct that opinion, but there's no need to be so patronisingly stupid about it.

I've done my GCSE's. I'm just taking a break now from revising A2 Maths.

2013 Durham

Entry standards 2013 (501) 2012- 487
Student Satisfaction 2013 (4.1) 4.0
Research Assessment 2013( 2.72) 2.72
Graduate Prospects 2013- (78.5) 80.4

As you can see student satisfaction has gone up only marginally. RAE has stayed the same. Graduate prospects has gone down, so clearly its the entry standards which has pushed Durham up from 890 to 915 in the past year. Graduate prospects appears to be given a large weighting, as St Andrews beats out Durham on two counts (entry standards and student satisfaction and they're tied on research. Durham's research doesn't even hit the 2.8 mark, look at the gap between it and the top 4 (2.98, 2.98, 2.96.2.96 and then 2.72.. I'm not really meaning to bash Durham, but I just don't think that its any better than UCL, Warwick or St Andrews. In regards to the data, I think a top 4 would be more apt.

How many accounts do you have?

I am assuming you are Tsunami as well.

How many accounts do you have?

I am assuming you are Tsunami as well.

Cambridge has been outside the top two before so perhaps this "gap", if we accept one, started to close a while ago?

Anway, not necessarily. LSE isn't a multi-faculty university and, besides, though I don't pay much attention to either, subject league tables are probably more worthwhile as it's less a case of comparing "apples and organges". Regularly in course rankings you'll find Oxford or Cambridge aren't in the top two, and this has been the case for a number of years (probably since the early 1990s - the creation of the now standard newspaper league table).

Cambridge out of the top 2 overall? Which year? The thing is oxford was ranked 1st or 2nd overall for the last 15 years. Subject table wise is less relevant since the university in general is no better than oxbridge.