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

noticed you applied to kcl twice...is that because its not a top uni

yep its better, but kings is definitely better than warwick durham york bath and southampton

These league tables are so confusing. What happened to Manchester?! I've seen places like Kent, Sussex and Essex ranked anywhere from 50th to 30th. I think basically the big difference is between the ex-Polytechnics, which only require C's and D's in your A-Levels, and the Universities which were built as Universities. Roughly, any University ranked 50th or higher is ok, once you get to 55th-60th and below they are not really proper Universities. That doesn't mean they are worthless though.

not really focus

just a bit miffed that unis with good reputations are so low in the rankings...i also mentioned some others as well

Utter rubbish. Do you truly believe that Durham or LSE is "pretty much the same prestige" as London South Bank or Middlesex?

OP: Yes the Guardian guide is a load of BS. You can still access the Times one fortunately.
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php

Oh BTW doesn't Kings issue University of London degrees? In which case, on completion of your degree, you will be issued a degree that is indistinguishable from one earned at lowly Birbeck college lol.

I bet that'll drive you round the bend

Oh BTW doesn't Kings issue University of London degrees? In which case, on completion of your degree, you will be issued a degree that is indistinguishable from one earned at lowly Birbeck college lol.

I bet that'll drive you round the bend

I repeat what I wrote before:

All these threads you're making lately show me that you are very insecure about King's and you seek validation from the rest of us... i.e. you're not convinced that it is a good uni, otherwise you wouldn't have made like 10 threads about it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-league-table

now that the times university league table has become less accessible since they have started charging to use their website...people seem to be referencing the guardian one quite alot...but imho the list is not very reliable

im going to kcl in september which is one of the top 25 universities in the world, however the following universities are above it: lancaster, york, leicester, exeter, sussex, durham, uea, surrey,city

i doubt very much if a student was offered a place kcl they would turn it down to go to one of these lesser unis

they also have good unis very low down in the league ie nottingham 21st birmingham 30th bristol in 33rd leeds 35th newcastle 37th manchester 51st (kings 25th)

reputation > league table

sorry it didnt work out for you...what uni are you at now and how are you getting along?

im going to kcl in september which is one of the top 25 universities in the world, however the following universities are above it: lancaster, york, leicester, exeter, sussex, durham, uea, surrey,city

i doubt very much if a student was offered a place kcl they would turn it down to go to one of these lesser unis

Not entirely sure how you have come to the conclusion that the above are 'lesser' unis than kcl but I assume you have attained a degree from each to back up that claim?

Durham is better than kings for many of the subjects. But then that's my view. How and what criteria do we use to define better? Entry requirements well then if that's true Cambridge and Imperial are both better than Oxford in every subject that requires A*AA or higher. RAE well then how do we know whether one subject research is better than the other. One Uni may do more tests and research that are less significant than other acheivements with other unis who find a few important achievements. UCAS points average. Well maybe a bunch of geniuses went to south bank uni and a few people who scrape AAA in A level go to Oxford. Graduate prospects can depend on whether the employers is affiliated with the Uni or not. Finally theres degree classification. Well try and get a first in Cambridge. Pretty hard in comparison to lower.
Point is well unless there is a clear line with the Universities, saying two similar unis that have different reputations and student satisfaction will distinguish universities in terms of how good the universities are. Reputation is also biased.

I agree, my point is that it is impossible to claim, for instance, that KCL is a university 'better' than York. Naturally some universities have an academic prowess superior to others, that is indisputable. But it is the same argument that many of my friends had when going through UCAS - Manchester's better than Liverpool, no its not, Nottingham is. The course, choice of accomodation, quality of teaching and what you make out of it are the key factors.