[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a.partridge)
Attachment 145782

We all know that league tables are stupid anyway... but does anyone notice anything strange about the final scores here? I Wonder what's really going on ;o

this being from the 'complete university guide table'

What is going on is that Lancaster has a facilities spend that is 62% higher than Bristol's.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ankings?v=wide

[a.partridge]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
What is going on is that Lancaster has a facilities spend that is 62% higher than Bristol's.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ankings?v=wide

Hrmn good find, although It still raises further questions like...

If the breakdown of the facilities spend is on 'careers service, sports and counseling' you would think these things would be represented by the student prospects and satisfaction respectively - the quantity of money spent seems a bit arbitrary as you might end up with a higher rank from a bit of bad management ;z

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a.partridge)
Hrmn good find, although It still raises further questions like...

If the breakdown of the facilities spend is on 'careers service, sports and counseling' you would think these things would be represented by the student prospects and satisfaction respectively - the quantity of money spent seems a bit arbitrary as you might end up with a higher rank from a bit of bad management ;z

Facilities spend is, like entry standards, a measure of a university's inputs whereas student satisfaction or graduate prospects is a measure of the university's outputs.

The key to the data says that facilities spend data is unreliably low for collegiate universities and yet it is noticeable that of the top 10 universities, seven are collegiate, the exceptions being Imperial (which of course was collegiate until 2007), Warwick and Bath.

Is it really plausible to believe that Reading spends only 58% of what Surrey spends or that Hertfordshire spends four times the amount of Anglia Ruskin? One would expect these sort of differences to be visible on the ground.

The figures for academic services spend look no more reliable. What on earth does LSE spend £2076 per student on? It is twice as much as Aston, Bath and Loughborough which are doing big ticket science and engineering. Economics journals just aren't that expensive. Premises costs are excluded from this spending, so it isn't that LSE is renting central London space. Likewise Liverpool manages to spend £400 more per student than Manchester, but Jodrell Bank must cost Manchester a pretty penny. And on what pray, does Middlesex spend the £1000 more per student than is spent on a Kingston student bearing in mind that the total spend on a Leeds student (and Leeds of course has a medical school) is £825

[a_mashru88]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
What on earth does LSE spend £2076 per student on? It is twice as much as Aston, Bath and Loughborough which are doing big ticket science and engineering. Economics journals just aren't that expensive.

It's totally ignorant to think LSE only teaches Economics, it doesn't. It subscribes to a huge amount of journals (80,000 ejournals and ebooks), and they are expensive. LSE helps to fund social science experiments, such as psychology. The library is one of the largest libraries in the world devoted to the economic and social sciences. The Library has earned 'Designation' status for its pre-eminent collections of national and international importance by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). They have a top careers service (which might help to explain why the LSE has the highest graduate prospects). Their lecturers are some of the best academics in their field, and the LSE has to keep counter-offering other top unis offers (e.g. Harvard trying to take LSE's 1st year Economics lecturer, Alwyn Young). The LSE are also investing heavily in new buildings such as the new student centre. Departmental spend is high, with lecturers being able to take students out to see plays, go to restaurants, and to pubs - with little or no cost to the student.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a_mashru88)
It's totally ignorant to think LSE only teaches Economics, it doesn't. It subscribes to a huge amount of journals (80,000 ejournals and ebooks), and they are expensive. LSE helps to fund social science experiments, such as psychology. The library is one of the largest libraries in the world devoted to the economic and social sciences. The Library has earned 'Designation' status for its pre-eminent collections of national and international importance by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). They have a top careers service (which might help to explain why the LSE has the highest graduate prospects). Their lecturers are some of the best academics in their field, and the LSE has to keep counter-offering other top unis offers (e.g. Harvard trying to take LSE's 1st year Economics lecturer, Alwyn Young). The LSE are also investing heavily in new buildings such as the new student centre. Departmental spend is high, with lecturers being able to take students out to see plays, go to restaurants, and to pubs - with little or no cost to the student.

Rather than give what amounts to marketing puff for LSE, just think about what you have written.

First of all the statistics I quoted are said to exclude premises spend where LSE might be epected to have a high figure.

Salaries, with a modest London weighting, are identical in all Pre-92 universities. The statistics I have quoted would ignore academics' salaries but would take account of slightly higher salaries for lab technicians.

LSE has no museum.

I accept, though I do not know that, LSE may have a higher spend on careers services and student entertainment.

However, these costs pale into insignificance beside the cost of "big ticket" physical and biological science research and engineering.

The reality is that the figures used in the CUG for these spends are meaningless because different universities collate their figures in different ways.

For example LSE's library spend is published at £7.1M, Aston's is published at £1.2M, which looks fine until one realises that LSE's includes staff costs, utilities etc whereas Aston's includes nothing but the books and journals. In other words one is comparing apples and pears.

[Txi]

(Original post by River85)
Well, it's largely the result of significant grade inflation combined with an almost year on year increase in application numbers.

Not really, applications are down this year due to the fee rises.

[River85]

(Original post by Txi)
Not really, applications are down this year due to the fee rises.

This year. yes. though some universities have still seen significant increase in applicants.

I was referring to the general trend over the last fifteen years which has seen a very large increase in application numbers as well as numbers of people at university (two falls being the year top up fees were introduced - 2006 entry, and this application cycle)

Not I said an increase in almost every year.

[Txi]

(Original post by River85)
This year. yes. though some universities have still seen significant increase in applicants.

I was referring to the general trend over the last fifteen years which has seen a very large increase in application numbers as well as numbers of people at university (two falls being the year top up fees were introduced - 2006 entry, and this application cycle)

Not I said an increase in almost every year.

Huh ?

So what does all this have to do with numbers being down this year but grades are still high.

And this year is all I was and am asking about - please note

That is a contradictory situation which leads to the suspicion of rigging for various reasons by the unis.

[River85]

(Original post by Txi)
Huh ?

So what does all this have to do with numbers being down this year but grades are still high.

And this year is all I was and am asking about - please note

That is a contradictory situation which leads to the suspicion of rigging for various reasons by the unis.

Because you cannot look at this year in isolation. In determining typical offers universities use the trend over recent years. Even though there has been a drop this year, this is not represented across all universities and still leaves a large number of applications compared to ten years ago.

You have also chosen to ignore the crucial second point about grade inflation. Although application numbers are down slightly, grade inflation is still noticeable. I wager that this year will be another record year for grades and passes. If, say, one in every 10 students is achieving AAA, and half of grades are either A or B, then do you really expect universities to give modest offers for oversubscribed courses?

[Txi]

(Original post by River85)
Because you cannot look at this year in isolation. In determining typical offers universities use the trend over recent years. Even though there has been a drop this year, this is not represented across all universities and still leaves a large number of applications compared to ten years ago.

You have also chosen to ignore the crucial second point about grade inflation. Although application numbers are down slightly, grade inflation is still noticeable. I wager that this year will be another record year for grades and passes. If, say, one in every 10 students is achieving AAA, and half of grades are either A or B, then do you really expect universities to give modest offers for oversubscribed courses?

So what ?

You can't deny that this year is watermark year, 9k a year + expenses is no joke and a lot people will not take the bait.

There is every chance that enrollments will drop back a bit.

You seem to take this very personally, why do you care either way - you are long past your UG days ?

[River85]

(Original post by Txi)
So what ?

You can't deny that this year is watermark year, 9k a year + expenses is no joke and a lot people will not take the bait.

There is every chance that enrollments will drop back a bit.

It was unsurprising that the higher fees resulted in a drop of applicant numbers, as top up fees did in 2006.

Whether this is part of a long term decline in applicant numbers remains to be seen. When fees were introduced in the late 90s, and then trebled in 2006, it did not harm applicant numbers long term.

I expect many will be more careful in their applications and seek even greater value from their education. But I think numbers will rise and stabalise, particularly as more get to understand the new fees and repayment structure.

And you're still ignoring grade inflation which has been a major reason for increased offers over the years.

Even if there is going to be a decline in applicant numbers this is not going to result in lower offers this very year, is it? In your own words, you're only looking at this year, so I fail to see what you're getting at.

You seem to take this very personally, why do you care either way - you are long past your UG days ?

I'm not taking it personally and I'm not "long past my UG days" considering I've only just finished. Even if I was, I don't see what difference that should make.

[Txi]

What inflation ?

The difference is that one would not care either way as applications would be irrelevant to them .

Surely an obvious point.

[River85]

(Original post by Txi)
What inflation ?

The rampant grade inflation that has taken place over the last generation or more, meaning the once rare A grade is now very common and, due to the frequency of A grades, the A* has been introduced in GCSEs and A-levels.

If you aren't aware that grade inflation has taken place then you clearly don't know much as this is a well known fact. You should therefore not comment on these matters.

The difference is that one would not care either way as applications would be irrelevant to them .

Surely an obvious point.

I have no idea what you mean. Who wouldn't care? Applications are irrelevant to whom?

[North Irelandman]

When you compare all these spending figures you should remember that you are looking at one small contributor to the overall score; depending on the methodology used by CUG it may have a small (or not so small) weighting.

Also you seem to argue about the reliability of figures, which I quote:
"The raw data for the League Table all come from sources in the public domain. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) provided data for entry standards, student-staff ratios, spending on academic services, facilities spending, good honours degrees, graduate prospects, completion and overseas student enrolments. HESA is the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about the universities."

LSE might not have a museum as you say for some reason, but it is building a new student centre from the ground up, and has one of the largest social science libraries in the world, which I think justifies a lot of their spend.

[Txi]

The issue has nought to do with inflation, it is you that brought it up.

UG Applications are irrelevant to 27 year old who have graduated a long time ago - that's who.

If you aren't aware these issues then you clearly don't know much as this applies directly to you a well known fact. You should therefore not comment on these matters.

[Txi]

funny how people say tables are stupid but everyone keeps harping on about it .

LOL

[Frenchous]

(Original post by Txi)
The issue has nought to do with inflation, it is you that brought it up.

UG Applications are irrelevant to 27 year old who have graduated a long time ago - that's who.

If you aren't aware these issues then you clearly don't know much as this applies directly to you a well known fact. You should therefore not comment on these matters.

Don't be too harsh. This subsection of TSR is what gives a meaning to his life

[Sambo2]

Nevermind league tables, check out the scenery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLhPd7kdQIc

[a_mashru88]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Rather than give what amounts to marketing puff for LSE, just think about what you have written.

First of all the statistics I quoted are said to exclude premises spend where LSE might be epected to have a high figure.

Salaries, with a modest London weighting, are identical in all Pre-92 universities. The statistics I have quoted would ignore academics' salaries but would take account of slightly higher salaries for lab technicians.

LSE has no museum.

I accept, though I do not know that, LSE may have a higher spend on careers services and student entertainment.

However, these costs pale into insignificance beside the cost of "big ticket" physical and biological science research and engineering.

The reality is that the figures used in the CUG for these spends are meaningless because different universities collate their figures in different ways.

For example LSE's library spend is published at £7.1M, Aston's is published at £1.2M, which looks fine until one realises that LSE's includes staff costs, utilities etc whereas Aston's includes nothing but the books and journals. In other words one is comparing apples and pears.

I don't want to get into a 'thing' about this, as I don't care that much to be honest - lots of unis are great. I'm just a bit confused as to what you are trying to get at... you're using stats to say that the stats given in the league table are wrong?
I basically just copied and pasted the league table's blurb for how they justified LSEs student spend, because you asked what they spend the £2076 on. It didn't say LSE has a museum and nor did I. If you think that the figures were complied incorrectly, then you should question those who compiled it. I only questioned your implication that all LSE buys for its students is, "economics journals."
If league tables continue to publish incorrectly compiled data, they will soon lose their reputation, so I wouldn't let it get to you.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a_mashru88)
I don't want to get into a 'thing' about this, as I don't care that much to be honest - lots of unis are great. I'm just a bit confused as to what you are trying to get at... you're using stats to say that the stats given in the league table are wrong?
I basically just copied and pasted the league table's blurb for how they justified LSEs student spend, because you asked what they spend the £2076 on. It didn't say LSE has a museum and nor did I. If you think that the figures were complied incorrectly, then you should question those who compiled it. I only questioned your implication that all LSE buys for its students is, "economics journals."
If league tables continue to publish incorrectly compiled data, they will soon lose their reputation, so I wouldn't let it get to you.

I will give a constructive answer.

I accept that LSE doesn't only buy economics journals; that was simplistic shorthand for the sort of expenditure incurred in providing social science courses.

HESA publishes criteria for data collection and then collects data from universities but does not necessarily validate that data. The difficulties in doing this can be seen that we are now more than a year on from AAB+ status being vital to determining university funding, but HEFCE still doesn't believe it has accurate data from universities as to the number of AAB+ students.

An important test with any data collection exercise is a "reality check". Do the figures seem right? Amongst the examples I gave was an enormous disparity in spending between Kingston and Middlesex.

If one looks at LSE in isolation, one can well believe it has a spend of that amount. However, if one then compares it with institutions that, from the courses they offer, would naturally have very high levels of expenditure, LSE is up with them. If one then looks at what money pits LSE has, it hasn't got many. Public museums run by universities cost a lot. So do labs, national standard sports facilities, radio telescopes, botanic gardens, arts theatres. LSE has none of these. It does have very expensive real estate but that is excluded from the calculations. It does have a high library spend but even that raises some questions. Other universities with a lot of students who have a heavy drain on library budgets, particularly medicine, and the hard sciences seem to spend far less on their library.

Ultimately, this is an issue of attribution. Unversities attribute costs were they wish for their own budgetry purposes. If that data is simply carried forward to a league table without any attempt to reattribute those costs on a common basis, we have the absurd situation that a league table position depends on whether the library cleaner's wages are attributed to the library budget or a cleaning budget. LSE seems to put every possible cost relating to the library onto the library budget. The other university I looked at, Loughborough I think, spent nothing on the library other than on books and journals. Seemingly the library staff worked for nothing, the physics department had invented limitless free electricity and the biologists had genetically engineered a printer-paper tree! Of course, in reality these costs are borne somewhere else in the university budget that has no favourable impact on its league table position.