[Deep456]

(Original post by 0404343m)
I think all of those currently apply to both. Google some alumni: Adam Smith, Lord Kelvin in one, David Hume and Charles Darwin in the other. The list is as long as your arm at both.

Rankings wise: currently, they're about one place apart (14th and 15th). Infact, Glasgow is top 20 in all (rankings are stupid things at the best of times, but since we're using it as a reason) and ahead of Edinburgh in two, Edinburgh isn't top 20 in all at the moment. Historically- i.e. 20 years out of a 550 year old institution- they've tended to be about the same place- Glasgow has always had a higher dropout rate (possibly due to a higher percentage of local students who don't pay fees and have less tying them to the degree) which costs points. Otherwise, zilch to pick.

Internationally, Edinburgh does well. There's a good reason for this too: Look at global rankings and the places that place highly. There's an article on this somewhere if I can dig it up, but essentially, universities in capital cities place highly because academics are asked to rate 'best universities in Finland', or something. Since they probably know nothing about Finland, they write 'Helsinki' and hope for the best. This is partly why KCL and Edinburgh do very well in international tables (with peer review) and less well in national ones. Ask any German about their education system, and they'll tell you having Humboldt Berlin and Freie Berlin at the top of global tables is a nonsense: Internally they're nowhere, certainly not top three. This happens in many countries. I think if you ask Scots rather than undergraduates or school pupils on TSR, you'll get a different answer.

Where you're correct though is public schools in England. The further you go from Glasgow, the more people are likely to believe that the place is a grim, crime ridden hole, as if all of one city is a castle and the royal mile and all of the other is a council estate in Easterhouse. That outdated kind of reputation take s a long time to change, and there are still parents that won't allow their kids to go to Manchester, Glasgow, Dundee or Belfast, thinking of the time they were students in the 1970s. Edinburgh, despite having more than its fair share of dodgy areas, has avoided that. Glasgow has some horrendous crime rates- but nowhere near the university in the affluent and prosperous West End of the city.

If you go to the Old College of Edinburgh and walk around that area, and then compare it with the Gilbert Scott of Glasgow and the area around that, I'd honestly defy anyone to tell me that the former is better in any way. The problem is, and this is where 'prestige' comes into it, is that a reputation of a city probably means lots of privately educated kids will immediately write off Glasgow, not bother visiting, and then fawn over how amazingly brilliant Edinburgh is. I'm not saying it isn't, but having taught and researched at both and know numerous people at both, I'd say there's nothing to pick between them in terms of facilities, academics, standards. Give Glasgow City another 20 years to wipe the grim image of the 60s and 70s away, and I think we'd be having a very different conversation. After all, for hundreds of years they have existed to be the mirror of each other in the west and east of the country, primarily focused on serving the two regions where two thirds of Scotland live.

Fundamentally, I think there are bigger things to worry about rather than whether one huge, complex, institution is better overall than another huge, complex institution. TSR is permanently obsessed with 'Leeds vs Manchester' debates, as if having one on the CV is going to stop you getting the job compared to the graduate of the other. Even with Oxford and Cambridge, that hasn't been how it's worked for years now.

Edit: Also, ST13 was a table based on the highest ranked universities from the previous year's league table, i.e. 1999. That was full of problems (since some universities with relatively bad records on admitting students from poorer backgrounds like Exeter were omitted. The Sutton Trust themselves said once that had they used another year's tables, there'd be different institutions there), so they decided to go on the 30 'most selective' instead, and updated it in 2011. The way rankings go, it'd always have been dangerous to base things on one year from over a decade ago.

Fair enough but most of my post agrees with you.

When I was at public school, Edinburgh was quite a popular choice whist Glasgow didn't get a look in so I always thought it was significantly better. So I agree with you there.

I would have quite liked to go to a Scottish university, if I lived closer.

[anniemagnificent]

The Times Higher's Table of Tables is out -

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=420400&c=1

[ninja_pidgeon]

(Original post by 0404343m)
Yeah- there is a 'tough guy' Glaswegian culture among some, no doubt about it. Fact is, Glasgow's crime is driven by gangs and drugs in particularly bad pockets of the city (which are probably, on balance, more numerous and more dangerous than most other places). A perceived disrespecting in the wrong pub to the wrong guy (that's not just a Glasgow problem though) can end up with a bottle to the head, as seeming tough is paramount. That all being said, that's a different thing entirely to saying it's more dangerous to be a student, since they're pretty damn well unlikely to be in a gang owing people drug money in Possilpark, and they'll be spending more time in the West End or city centre where the worst thing that might happen is that someone spills his latté over your vintage tweed sports jacket, or the Sauvignon Blanc was corked in the last wine bar. Just like Edinburgh students aren't likely to hang about Sighthill for the fun of it, so too are Glasgow students unlikely to wander 30mins out of their way to find a boozer in Maryhill.

Courses wise: For my areas (broadly defined as History, Politics and Economics, although I know a bit about English Literature too), I'd say in terms of content and expectations, there is nothing to pick. Taking a load of students from a Glasgow or Edinburgh state school means as lecturers we have to get people into good habits that they might not have been taught at school, so it can be a bit more of a chore to get them up to speed initially, but once that hurdle is achieved, I've not noticed anything much. St Andrews has still managed to cap honours class sizes at 8 with lectures of 24, whereas at Glasgow and Edinburgh we're still talking 10 with lectures of 40 in history, but again, I don't think that makes a load of difference. I would stick a neck out here and say St Andrews probably has the best business school of the three, although Strathclyde's is still probably the best in Scotland.

Chemistboy, no longer active on TSR, who did his UG at St A, will tell you that for Chemistry, he reckons all of those three, plus Strath, are identical in terms of expectations and facilities. He's got a PhD and works in industry, so I'd take his word in that area, since I know little about it. Other areas, you may well be right for- although my argument has always been that it's unreasonable to expect multifaculty universities to be ahead of others in every respect, it's often the cast that in a head to head to head situation, one is better in some than the others and so on.

I live near one of the more dodgy areas of Glasgow, Priesthill to be precise, and went to the "most violent school in Scotland" and see very little crime. The "hard" reputation for Glasgow is mostly in peoples minds and your very unlikely to actually see anything.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ninja_pidgeon]

(Original post by Slumpy)
I blame me for sounding too English! That said, the dude was clearly hammered and a bit nuts. And anywhere seems mental compared to my hometown

Cannot comment at all on arts courses! Chemistry is one of the ones I'm told St A is a bit ahead on, but I'm thinking more research than UG (know almost nothing about most of the Scottish unis for UG!) Maths I think they're supposed to be pretty even (possibly Glasgow a bit behind the other 2, I forget), Physics St A possibly edges a bit, but I think it's all much of a muchness really, as with most of the top (that sounds more disparaging than it was meant to!)

I think St. A gets it for UG but Glasgow seems better for PG and research


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[0404343m]

(Original post by Slumpy)
I blame me for sounding too English! That said, the dude was clearly hammered and a bit nuts. And anywhere seems mental compared to my hometown

Cannot comment at all on arts courses! Chemistry is one of the ones I'm told St A is a bit ahead on, but I'm thinking more research than UG (know almost nothing about most of the Scottish unis for UG!) Maths I think they're supposed to be pretty even (possibly Glasgow a bit behind the other 2, I forget), Physics St A possibly edges a bit, but I think it's all much of a muchness really, as with most of the top (that sounds more disparaging than it was meant to!)

RAE (now to be known as REF) is a bit of a red herring when it comes to picking out where students should study. I have my quibbles with it (essentially keeping a high 'average' score across lots of big departments is hard, so multifaculty universities struggle- hence Essex claiming they're top ten in the UK despite having very few departments and researchers) but I suppose it's useful for dividing up funding. That being said, why should the research strength of some law academics decide whether or not I should study engineering?

There's a false notion that small universities are better for UG and large, research intensive ones are better for PG, citing the importance of the RAE to postgrads. Anyway, in my department, one of the six largest in the UK, there's about 44 full time staff members, about ten or eleven part time/emeritus/research fellows, about 60 PhD students and a further 100+ masters students. The RAE said 25% of the research in the dept was in the top band (N.B. they're changing the definitions of each bands, so next time round, having 10% top band will be outstanding), so about eleven staff. For almost all of us, what the other 40 staff are doing is of little relevance, we contribute to a group of usually about six academics and nine or ten PhDs in our area. It's the same in Phys, Chem, Engineering. What a department of 90 staff is up to and how well that compares to another of 50 or 150 is probably irrelevant. If the five academics, ten post-docs and fifteen PhD students in your lab is top notch, then most people in the game will tell you that's all that matters. By the same token, having the world's best historian of modern warfare in the department counts for nothing if you're interested in medieval bishops. |

I think you're right though- it really is a very mixed bag of good/very good/excellent departments, labs or even academics (and extend that to buildings, students and facilities) at most of the top 25 or so universities. TSR should give up the obsession with 'proving' through subjective measures that as a university, X is better than Y when we're talking about established & selective universities.

[fnm]

(Original post by anniemagnificent)
The Times Higher's Table of Tables is out -

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=420400&c=1

So they don't take into account the Sunday Times? Ah well, all in all bit of a lazy table.

[Benniboi1]

Did league tables exist back in the 90's? Anybody know where I can find them for Physics and Maths if they do exist?

[Zenomorph]

York is a good uni but top 10 ? Not sure about that. And the fact that Exeter helps compile the Times Good Uni guide might be a factor in their meteoric rise.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some PG ranks, even if it by the papers.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
York is a good uni but top 10 ? Not sure about that. And the fact that Exeter helps compile the Times Good Uni guide might be a factor in their meteoric rise.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some PG ranks, even if it by the papers.

Um, we weren't top 10 this year in anything (well in some subjects we came top 5 and quite a few others top 10). The campus media have been quite upset about it.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
York is a good uni but top 10 ? Not sure about that. And the fact that Exeter helps compile the Times Good Uni guide might be a factor in their meteoric rise.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some PG ranks, even if it by the papers.

Outside of the top 8, it seems to be fair game with the next two positions alternating yearly.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Outside of the top 8, it seems to be fair game with the next two positions alternating yearly.

Are you referring to York or Exeter ?

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
Um, we weren't top 10 this year in anything (well in some subjects we came top 5 and quite a few others top 10). The campus media have been quite upset about it.

I thought the Times 2013 rankings put York at #5? Perhaps that was not a re-post of the overall ranks, my mistake if so.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by 0404343m)
RAE (now to be known as REF) is a bit of a red herring when it comes to picking out where students should study. I have my quibbles with it (essentially keeping a high 'average' score across lots of big departments is hard, so multifaculty universities struggle- hence Essex claiming they're top ten in the UK despite having very few departments and researchers) but I suppose it's useful for dividing up funding. That being said, why should the research strength of some law academics decide whether or not I should study engineering?

There's a false notion that small universities are better for UG and large, research intensive ones are better for PG, citing the importance of the RAE to postgrads. Anyway, in my department, one of the six largest in the UK, there's about 44 full time staff members, about ten or eleven part time/emeritus/research fellows, about 60 PhD students and a further 100+ masters students. The RAE said 25% of the research in the dept was in the top band (N.B. they're changing the definitions of each bands, so next time round, having 10% top band will be outstanding), so about eleven staff. For almost all of us, what the other 40 staff are doing is of little relevance, we contribute to a group of usually about six academics and nine or ten PhDs in our area. It's the same in Phys, Chem, Engineering. What a department of 90 staff is up to and how well that compares to another of 50 or 150 is probably irrelevant. If the five academics, ten post-docs and fifteen PhD students in your lab is top notch, then most people in the game will tell you that's all that matters. By the same token, having the world's best historian of modern warfare in the department counts for nothing if you're interested in medieval bishops. |

I think you're right though- it really is a very mixed bag of good/very good/excellent departments, labs or even academics (and extend that to buildings, students and facilities) at most of the top 25 or so universities. TSR should give up the obsession with 'proving' through subjective measures that as a university, X is better than Y when we're talking about established & selective universities.

Has to be said, I normally work on the (equally questionable) 'what the academics I know think' method of judging research
But yeah, by PhD, it's always struck me that the department is irrelevant almost, it's basically all on your supervisor. I also don't remember having any of this chat about league tables at school, because apart from the 5 of us who went to England, everyone else was Edinburgh/Glasgow pretty much equally!

[Meat is Murder]

(Original post by anniemagnificent)
The Times Higher's Table of Tables is out -

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=420400&c=1

The fact it takes into account the Guardian Table means this 'Table of Tables' can be discredited.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Zenomorph)
York is a good uni but top 10 ? Not sure about that. And the fact that Exeter helps compile the Times Good Uni guide might be a factor in their meteoric rise.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some PG ranks, even if it by the papers.

I think this says it all with regards to quick shifts in perceptions based on a university league table. York was second in 1998 and top five frequently in the 1990s. It was common to hear people barely a decade ago call it the leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge. Now, people question the accuracy of a table if it puts it in the top 10. During that time St Andrews was never inside the top 10- now putting it lower than eighth means whoever made the table has messed up along the way. You'll probably come on here in five years time and scratch your head why people are saying that Bristol shouldn't 'be that high', or something. I keep saying it, but a few higher or lower league table rankings effects people to the extent where they actually believe that somewhere should or should not be in a certain 'bracket' of universities. I'm not saying York should or should not be in a top 10, because I'm not saying there is such a thing as a top 10- we're reducing very complex things down to a few variables and telling someone that institution X with 20,000 students and 5,000 staff in 50 departments is better or worse than somewhere that might only teach half of the same degrees.

PG rankings are even more pointless than UG ones. There are some really highly specialised programs that exist in between departments that immediately have to be ranked against things they aren't the same as or not ranked at all. Many other ones work on giving students work placements which might land you that job with no questions asked, or might cause them to take an arbitrary dislike and give you no chance- both are equally unquantifiable and down to the student themselves. For PhDs, you'd have to produce a list of every lab and every supervisor in the country. If you have a degree under your belt and still need a newspaper to tell you where to study, then I'd suggest ending up unemployed with even more debt would probably not be surprise of the century at the end up the day.

[Zenomorph]

I thought Buckingham refused to submit their entry scores so how come that is not discounted against them ? Top 30 , argh I think not.

[0404343m]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
Um, we weren't top 10 this year in anything (well in some subjects we came top 5 and quite a few others top 10). The campus media have been quite upset about it.

I was really disappointed with York's response to this. The SU and the university managed to look like a bunch of idiots that really genuinely cared about two places in a table and would do whatever it took to get a higher score in it. It was a chance for them to say "we're moving forward, attracting quality students, regardless of whether we're 7th or 27th, and providing our students with the tools to succeed and we don't need a newspaper to tell us how to do our job". Instead, you get a guy sounding like his life is over because they're 13th. Idiot.

Partly because universities are run with PR in mind means you get this crap. Going up in a flaming table (even if it's 23rd to 21st) results in an email to all of the staff, students and alumni thanking them for their hard work, as if something's changed in the university that's meant they're a better institution from a year previously. When the opposite happens, everyone shuts up and pretends newspapers don't exist, or take a leaf from Edinburgh's book and just twist the figures: "if we multiply our bad RAE score in this subject with the number of staff we have, then we have the most people numerically in the top three bands outside of Oxford, Cambridge and London, and are therefore top four in the UK". While people seek good publicity at all costs, we're always going to get half of the universities releasing a press statement when they do well and the other half doing it the following year. The cycle will sadly probably never end, until the day where someone develops some sense and works out what students really want and need isn't best served by a newspaper, and more refuse to take part in them.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by 0404343m)
I think this says it all with regards to quick shifts in perceptions based on a university league table. York was second in 1998 and top five frequently in the 1990s. It was common to hear people barely a decade ago call it the leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge. Now, people question the accuracy of a table if it puts it in the top 10. During that time St Andrews was never inside the top 10- now putting it lower than eighth means whoever made the table has messed up along the way. You'll probably come on here in five years time and scratch your head why people are saying that Bristol shouldn't 'be that high', or something. I keep saying it, but a few higher or lower league table rankings effects people to the extent where they actually believe that somewhere should or should not be in a certain 'bracket' of universities. I'm not saying York should or should not be in a top 10, because I'm not saying there is such a thing as a top 10- we're reducing very complex things down to a few variables and telling someone that institution X with 20,000 students and 5,000 staff in 50 departments is better or worse than somewhere that might only teach half of the same degrees.

PG rankings are even more pointless than UG ones. There are some really highly specialised programs that exist in between departments that immediately have to be ranked against things they aren't the same as or not ranked at all. Many other ones work on giving students work placements which might land you that job with no questions asked, or might cause them to take an arbitrary dislike and give you no chance- both are equally unquantifiable and down to the student themselves. For PhDs, you'd have to produce a list of every lab and every supervisor in the country. If you have a degree under your belt and still need a newspaper to tell you where to study, then I'd suggest ending up unemployed with even more debt would probably not be surprise of the century at the end up the day.

I suppose so, I was questioning the newspaper that put York at 5 or whatever.

I was referring mainly to PG taught programmes not Phd's and I am myself am not necessarily looking for a PG, but since there are tables for everything now, just thought it was a little slow that some paper somewhere hadn't caught on to this.

[anniemagnificent]

(Original post by Benniboi1)
Did league tables exist back in the 90's? Anybody know where I can find them for Physics and Maths if they do exist?

The Times one, which I think was the first, started in 1992. I guess you'd have to go to a library to find it though - I just had as quick look on the Times website (I'm a subscriber) and I can't find it, sorry.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by anniemagnificent)
The Times one, which I think was the first, started in 1992. I guess you'd have to go to a library to find it though - I just had as quick look on the Times website (I'm a subscriber) and I can't find it, sorry.

Let me post a 1982 League Table produced by the legendary Brian Heap. It had a very simple methodology-average A level points offers as recorded by a large group of careers teachers.

The table deliberately excludes Oxbridge because of their entrance exams.

1 Bristol
2 Durham
3 Imperial
4 LSE
5 Bath
6 St Andrews
7 Edinburgh
8 Exeter
9 SOAS
10 Manchester
11 York
12 Birmingham