This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Reply 260

לילה

9

http://www.arwu.org/SubjectMathematics2010.jsp

Is this some kind of joke? :eyebrow:

Reply 261

a.posteriori

^ The methodology favors larger schools, as those schools will have more alumni and faculty with awards and more papers published.

Reply 262

blacklight

5

vander Beth

I hope they really didn't believe they were no. 4 mwahaha

That was the Times QS ranking. This is a different ranking, UCL has remained in the same place (21st). UK universities do better in the Times one.

As others have said, these rankings put more emphasis on research, citations, nobel prizes. The UK national ones care more about student satisfaction, A level entry requirements, yearly spending on facilities etc.

UCL seems to have a thing for doing popular research and nabbing nobel prizes, especially in medicine areas, so research focused rankings will favour UCL more.

Reply 263

pinstripe306

These ranking tables are meaningless. First, it's not subject specific, and in the end it's down to the reputation of the university.

Reply 264

ish90an

10

Glasgow above Warwick and Durham. :biggrin:

Reply 265

fazilahmed

Oxford is 49 and manchester is 33!!!!!!!! and cambidge ranked 16 !!! this ranking is ******** .... I cant imagine why manchester is ranked better than oxford...It favours the American univ

Reply 266

blacklight

5

fazilahmed

Oxford is 49 and manchester is 33!!!!!!!! and cambidge ranked 16 !!! this ranking is ******** .... I cant imagine why manchester is ranked better than oxford...It favours the American univ

What are you on about? Oxford is 10th, Manchester is in the 40s.

Reply 267

asparkyn

15

Wow, they're all America-dominated.

I find it very difficult to believe that NUS or HKU didn't make it to any of the top charts though.

Reply 268

Phantom_X

15

I did some research on this table, so dont be disheartened if your uni is low.

Some of the ranking is dependent on alumni statuses, nobel prizes, the numbers of research papers written about nature and science, as well as value added context. So ofc, this table favours older, and bigger universities in comparison to smaller and newer ones. Possibly why places like Durham, Warwick and York are lower than say, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield.

Reply 269

Focus08

16

Original post by &#1500

http://www.arwu.org/SubjectMathematics2010.jsp

Is this some kind of joke? :eyebrow:

I think so. The UK institutions are ranked pretty low on there. But I know that you are questioning the validity of this ranking based on absence of UCL. This I don't think is a joke, COWI is rightfully so in there. And looking at entry standards amongst other things, I'm not surprised that Bristol grabbed a place before UCL.

Reply 270

darknessbehold

American bias.

Reply 271

AfghanistanBananistan

6

Tetrahydro

I believe this methodology is more creditable than the ones we use in national rankings. Student satisfaction started to gain the biggest weighing in the Times Good Uni Guide when an Exeter-based consortium linked to the university took over the formulation of the methodology of the table. Funnily enough, student satsfaction was always Exeter's only outstanding credential. And so I believe this was done to prop up Exeter in the rankings to give the impression that it was a more reputable university than it actually is, so that they could gradually raise their entry standards and subsequently maintain the position they cheated to get to, even if the formula some day changes massively.

Obviously, the other tables followed suit in favouring student satisfaction over all other measures, as the Times Guide is seen as the benchmark for national university guides. Thus, Exeter also started to rise rapidly in the other tables too.

It's just a hunch, but the dots really do seem to connect if you look into it.

So true, it is such a fiddle.

The funny thing now it that so many school leavers automatically go 'oh, yes i want to go to exeter cos ive heard it is well amazing and the place to be - look it ranks 10th' (not realising it was 30th and 40th three years ago), while Exeter students now all go 'yeah i go to a top 10 uni, oh Britstol, it not as good as exeter cos its not a top 10 now' - even though the exeter students know it should not be there and was not when they applied.

It show how dangerous rankings are for perception. People automatically apply to exeter regardless of whether it is any good, and this was a good ploy on exeters behalf. If Oxford Brookes started to compile a ranking to make themselves in the top 20 then people will automatically start applying there even though it has not improved.

I personally think that all rankings should be done by independent bodies to prevent bias

Reply 272

piknik

And how much did you rely on them when applying to university?

Reply 273

MrCynical

I found league tables to be rather useless when I was applying. The rankings tend to be highly subjective, and based on a rather random assortment of dubious statistics. They're not too bad for splitting universities into rough leagues, but I'd work on the basis that there's very little difference between any given university and the five immediately above or below it in the rankings.

You only have to look at the variation between the numerous different league tables to see how much opinion there is in them.

Reply 274

xmarilynx

18

They're good for a vague idea or where's good and where's not (ie, the top 40-50 are generally considered better than those outside it), but they change every year and each league table uses different criteria to get different results, so it's crazy to say that university 8 is better than university 9, or whatever. Have a look at the league tables, but the course, location and various other factors depending on what you're looking for should be considered too. Unfortunately I relied on the league tables too much when I applied.

Reply 275

username306617

14

I found the parameters used to rank the unis wasn't really what I cared about when choosing.
The only areas I really cared about were Student Satifaction and Employment rate. Also, the league tables judge the uni as a whole, when really for most subjects, all you really need to know is how good they are for your course. I find it's best to see who your course is acridited by, where doing your course has got other graduates, and the employment rate for your faculty.

How accurate are League Tables?

Very.

How useful are League Tables?

Not very.

Reply 277

fazilahmed

blacklight

What are you on about? Oxford is 10th, Manchester is in the 40s.

well I was looking at Engineering & Technology ranking...

Reply 278

orca92

13

screenager2004

According to this, Warwick is ranked 15th-19th nationally? I don't think so!!!

This

And i refuse to pay much attention to any league table that ranks Warwick and LSE outside of the UK top 10.

Bring on THE-QS i say, maybe they'll get LSE in the top 10 this year.

Reply 279

blacklight

5

orca92

This

And i refuse to pay much attention to any league table that ranks Warwick and LSE outside of the UK top 10.

Bring on THE-QS i say

Yeah, Warwick is kind of a surprise. LSE being absent is probably right, since it has a very restricted subject set. I don't think LSE should really be compared in these rankings, since it's kind of a different breed of institution. Imperial is a bit dodgy too, but that does offer a lot more subjects at least.

I think it should be taken into account these rankings show postgraduate RESEARCH more than most. None of the metrics seem to really measure teaching or undergraduate stuff. Every ranking has a particular bias, like most of our newspaper rankings are focused more on undergrad taught degrees. This one just goes in a different direction, which is why things are kind of different.

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

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you