This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Reply 1900

League tables are only generally accurate by the quartile, so say out of a 100 it gets the top 25, top 50, top 75 etc. right. That's as accurate as the measures get tbh.

The only individual places they get 100% right is that Oxbridge takes 1st and 2nd, that's a prerequisite to any ranking system for the UK.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1901

Keckers

15

Original post by new_user_006

and why is the demand high? Because their graduates can't get jobs? :rolleyes:

Demand is high because the required grades are higher so they attract a large percentage of that calibre of student. The grades are higher because demand is high so they cater for high demand with increased grades etc etc

Reply 1902

xuntu

10

Original post by new_user_006

Prestige- the average UCAS tariff is the 'voice' of all students making their choice for university. Better students will go to better universities (which will have higher average UCAS tariffs).

Cambridge 559
Oxford 536
Imperial 519
LSE 513
Durham 487
St Andrews 485
Warwick 480
UCL 477
.
.
.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Entry&v=wide

Warwick and UCL have lower averages because they contain courses which are easier to get admitted to. The above 'table' shows the general prestige and therefore quality of the graduate output per university.

Well you are completely wrong here when saying that ''Average UCAS Points'' determine the quality of an institution.
I really second what River85 has said and I would like to add a couple things which are really common sense.

*First of all, the Data only contains the tariff points of A levels and few other qualifications which automatically undermines the average UCAS points of universities which take in brilliant students from other International Qualifications which are not included in the data.

*The entry standards cannot be expressed in some type of stupid numerical form, a lot depends upon what subjects you take and what grades you get in those subjects with some subjects being more preferable than the others for the intended course.

*Large universities with large number of different departments and faculties will have their average UCAS points get lowered just because there are few departments which has low entry standards. So this is a dis-advantage for large universities.

*Similarly, universities with large Medical schools have advantage over non-medical universities as the requirements are often very high to get into Medical so that automatically supports the concerned university's overall UCAS points even though there is a possibility that it might not be a very great university.

*Moreover some universities which have a specific policy of accepting students with low grades as part of an access policy will have tend to have their average score get depressed in the data which is another flaw.

*The actual grades needed will vary by subject and few if any courses will ask for grades in more than three subjects. For example, there is a person who went to Imperial with AAA, in other words 360 UCAS points, while another person with BBBC went to some lesser university with less requirements, in other words 380 UCAS points, now how fair is that ? AAA > BBBC any given day.
Another example, one decent University requires Mathematics and a person with 3A's gets in it, while another less prestigious universities doesn't require mathematics and a person gets in with 3A's in subjects like GP, Tourism etc, but their average UCAS points will be equal. How fair is that ?

All in all, this ''Average UCAS Points'' cannot be used as a sole factor to determine the quality of institution, one more example, McGill requires BBC to get into their Electrical engineering program while Surrey requires AAB, now according to your logic, Surrey is a better university than Mcgill ?

I hope that helps.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1903

new_user_006

Original post by xuntu

Well you are completely wrong here when saying that ''Average UCAS Points'' determine the quality of an institution.

No- I said it determined the prestige of an institution......

Reply 1904

new_user_006

Original post by Keckers

Demand is high because the required grades are higher so they attract a large percentage of that calibre of student. The grades are higher because demand is high so they cater for high demand with increased grades etc etc

Yes and I asked why is the original demand for that course high if it's not because of the prestige?

Reply 1905

new_user_006

Original post by qwertyuiop1993

Surely we shouldn't judge an educational institution entirely on how good they are before they get to the university?.

Firstly, (to everyone) when people lookat league tables they arent saying to themselves "which university has the highest teaching quality?" they are asking "which universities are the most prestigious?".

River85 is looking at league tables as an academic and using them to work out which will give him a better education- this isnt what they can do. You cant work that out because it cannot be compared very easilly.

You cannot measure good honours between universities because the degree difficulties all vary.

You cannot measure student satisfaction because the students have not sampled more than their own university.

You cannot measure "Valued added" because........ it is just some leftist hog wash.

You cannot measure Student-Staff ratio, because it doesnt actually mean the staff are being fully utillised. They could be sitting in their labs- doesnt mean they are contributing to the student's education.

All the monetary metrics are good, but they do not mean much. Labour spent lots of money in 13 years.... and they achieved bugger all.

The only metric which can be compared across all students is the quality of their intake and this is the average UCAS tariff upon entry. Sorting by this metric will result in a table of the perceived prestige.

Reply 1906

Keckers

15

Original post by new_user_006

Yes and I asked why is the original demand for that course high if it's not because of the prestige?

Oh right, yeah I completely agree with you.

However, prestige means more or less **** all in terms of content quality and teaching.

Reply 1907

pixie<3

9

Original post by new_user_006

Firstly, (to everyone) when people lookat league tables they arent saying to themselves "which university has the highest teaching quality?" they are asking "which universities are the most prestigious?".

Everyone has different criteria - some want to study close to home, others want universities with excellent teaching and lots of student support and some people will go to a university that overall isn't ranked very highly but has a very good History/Physics/Maths department because that's important to them.

Reply 1908

qwertyuiop1993

16

Original post by new_user_006

Firstly, (to everyone) when people lookat league tables they arent saying to themselves "which university has the highest teaching quality?" they are asking "which universities are the most prestigious?".

River85 is looking at league tables as an academic and using them to work out which will give him a better education- this isnt what they can do. You cant work that out because it cannot be compared very easilly.

You cannot measure good honours between universities because the degree difficulties all vary.

You cannot measure student satisfaction because the students have not sampled more than their own university.

You cannot measure "Valued added" because........ it is just some leftist hog wash.

You cannot measure Student-Staff ratio, because it doesnt actually mean the staff are being fully utillised. They could be sitting in their labs- doesnt mean they are contributing to the student's education.

All the monetary metrics are good, but they do not mean much. Labour spent lots of money in 13 years.... and they achieved bugger all.

The only metric which can be compared across all students is the quality of their intake and this is the average UCAS tariff upon entry. Sorting by this metric will result in a table of the perceived prestige.

Yes I agree with you there - it's just that perceived prestige can be beneficial, but it can also be very disappointing when you actually get there, which is why people who look solely at UCAS tariff are really missing the whole picture...

Reply 1909

manhhab

http://registrarism.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/sunday-times-2012-university-league-table/
It's a new 2012 league table revealed by Sunday times
1 (2) University of Cambridge
2 (1) University of Oxford
3 (6) Durham University
4 (5) LSE
5 (9) University of Bath
6 (7) University of St Andrews
7 (4) University College London
8 (8) University of Warwick
9 (17) University of Exeter
10 (11) University of Bristol
11 (16) Loughborough University
12 (20) Newcastle University
13 (15) University of Sheffield
14 (3) Imperial College London
15= (12) University of Nottingham
15= (13) University of York
17 (10) King’s College London
18 (21=) Lancaster
19 (21=) Sussex
20 (26=) University of Glasgow

Reply 1910

new_user_006

Original post by manhhab

http://registrarism.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/sunday-times-2012-university-league-table/
It's a new 2012 league table revealed by Sunday times
1 (2) University of Cambridge
2 (1) University of Oxford
3 (6) Durham University
4 (5) LSE
5 (9) University of Bath
6 (7) University of St Andrews
7 (4) University College London
8 (8) University of Warwick
9 (17) University of Exeter
10 (11) University of Bristol
11 (16) Loughborough University
12 (20) Newcastle University
13 (15) University of Sheffield
14 (3) Imperial College London
15= (12) University of Nottingham
15= (13) University of York
17 (10) King’s College London
18 (21=) Lancaster
19 (21=) Sussex
20 (26=) University of Glasgow

Exactly, Newcastle and Sheffield being better than Imperial? I'd love to ask some of my recruiter/finance friends in the city what they think of that!

If the league table was just based upon entry requirements, then it wouldnt be about perception and it would basically be a contest for the universities to attract the best students. The best students would only go to the university they felt was superior (they wouldnt get mislead by pointless inaccurate tables).

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1911

fnm

13

How long have the international tables been going btw? Has it only been in the last say 4/5 years
QS UK unis in top 100 QS

(1)Cambridge
(5)Oxford
(6)Imperial
(7)UCL
(20)Edinburgh
(27)KCL
(29)Manchester
(30)Bristol
(50)Warwick
(59)Glasgow
(64) LSE
(67) Birmingham
(72) Sheffield
(74) Nottingham
(75) Southampton
(93) Leeds
(95) Durham
(96) York
(97) St. Andrews

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1912

anniemagnificent

6

Original post by AfghanistanBananistan

Well Imperial is ranked 14th in tomorrow's sunday times ranking so that top 4 may well change in the future (not to mention imperial's 10th place in this years guardian).

Yep. Now there are only FOUR universities that have never been out of the top ten in the domestic league tables since they started in the early nineties.

Reply 1913

Frenchous

10

Original post by anniemagnificent

Yep. Now there are only FOUR universities that have never been out of the top ten in the domestic league tables since they started in the early nineties.

Oxford, Cambridge and which ones?

Reply 1914

anniemagnificent

6

Original post by Frenchous

Oxford, Cambridge and which ones?

LSE and Warwick.

Reply 1915

River85

17

Original post by new_user_006

River85 is looking at league tables as an academic and using them to work out which will give him a better education.

No I'm not.

Original post by new_user_006

Exactly, Newcastle and Sheffield being better than Imperial? I'd love to ask some of my recruiter/finance friends in the city what they think of that!

What the heck should their opinions matter?

Reply 1916

Frenchous

10

Original post by anniemagnificent

LSE and Warwick.

Has UCL ever been out the top 10? The wikipedia page only goes to 2005 so maybe they were out before? How do you know yourself?

Reply 1917

River85

17

Original post by Frenchous

Has UCL ever been out the top 10? The wikipedia page only goes to 2005 so maybe they were out before? How do you know yourself?

Yes, it was 11th in the Times' 2003 Guide.

Check an earlier entry on its wikipedia page (5th May 2010 for example). There you'll be able to find its positions stretching back to 1993.

Reply 1918

Marc Fiorano

11

Original post by River85

What the heck should their opinions matter?

If anyone's opinions of uni/degrees matter it's potential employers, after all they are the ones judging the credentials. That's why I've never really cared about building my own 'rankings' of unis and I'm not concerned with others students' arguments about what is and isn't a good uni. As a career orientated student I'm only concerned with the standard set by potential employers.

There's nothing more frustrating than people who argue that university brand doesn't stop people from establishing certain jobs. Sure, it doesn't make it impossible but when you have companies setting an auto filter to remove CVs with non-target universities or recruitment ads specifying "Oxbridge & Imperial graduate" in their requirements it does matter. Maybe the practice is wrong, but it is the way it is.

It's all well and good to argue why a certain uni is top quality or has world class departments, as you tend to so often argue (which I agree to btw) but the universal perception of universities is what has the last word at the end.

I'm at Imperial atm and personally I couldn't care less if it's ranked 1st, 14th, 20th or 50th. As long as the industry perception of it remains as a leading uni, numerical rankings are just noise.

Reply 1919

River85

17

Original post by Marc Fiorano

If anyone's opinions of uni/degrees matter it's potential employers, after all they are the ones judging the credentials. That's why I've never really cared about building my own 'rankings' of unis and I'm not concerned with others students' arguments about what is and isn't a good uni. As a career orientated student I'm only concerned with the standard set by potential employers.

Yes, and even if we are to take potential employers' perception into account, surely we need to look at more than just finance? They are not the greatest authority in such matters and only account for a very small percentage of graduate jobs.

Even if we are to take into consideration employer perception (and, though I wouldn't like to see an employer review in any league table, I'd certainly prefer it to the head teacher review used in the Sunday Times - head teachers often being out of date with higher education) then we need to take a decent range.

What is someone in finance going to know about Newcastle's law department? Or its medical school?

There's nothing more frustrating than people who argue that university brand doesn't stop people from establishing certain jobs. Sure, it doesn't make it impossible but when you have companies setting an auto filter to remove CVs with non-target universities or recruitment ads specifying "Oxbridge & Imperial graduate" in their requirements it does matter. Maybe the practice is wrong, but it is the way it is.

Filter does occur, but it is rare.

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

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you