University of Warwick

Coventry

Warwick rankings; the Guardian 2011

I'm making a thread for the third major ranking, and it is indeed the best one. Third time lucky.

It is ranked 3rd overall. The Guardian is always nice to Warwick it seems. I'll take that (even though rankings suck because ******** is 6th overall :s-smilie:

)

As always it is doing well for Management, Economics, CAS, General Engineering, Eng Lit.

Lancaster beat Warwick for maths :s-smilie:

Yeah, sure

It did better for law in the Guardian compared to the other ones.

No point in overanalysing, but that 3rd overall spot sure looks good.. :cool:

Edit: Link

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

aphilpotts

all the more reason to make sure I'me there next year

Lancaster above Warwick for Maths is just mental though, its not even supposed to be close?!

University of Warwick

Coventry

Reply 2

ByronicHero

It is the worst rankings I have ever seen :L

Buckingham is like 6th for History or English or something.

So much fail.

This is why only idiots pay attention to league tables XD

Reply 3

xSkyFire

Chichester is above QMUL :biggrin:

Reply 4

Jingers

hahahaha

wait, you're serious

:nothing:

Reply 5

davidcarvalho

Cool stuff.... If not pathetic?

Reply 6

AnonymousPenguin

This ranking is just the worst one. Lancaster above the LSE and Imperial? Orly?

Reply 7

TheTallOne

Can't we just have a Warwick Rankings thread for 2010-11 entry?

Reply 8

Miss_Scarlet

yay 3rd overall :biggrin:

5th in English & 7th in German/languages is also pretty good :biggrin:

Reply 9

Krush

Ugh...Another ******* ranking.

Reply 10

forgetful-fairy

It's actually messed up this year. Imperial ask for A* how do they have lower entry requirements than Oxford?

Reply 11

Kreuzuerk

Truly inspirational thread.

Reply 12

rY4uGD1fMzBj4xe2

Imperial FTW. For that reason I pay more attention to the Times rankings than the Guardians :sexface:

Reply 13

AdHock

I don't understand the outrage directed at Lancaster. Sure, they did really well this year compared to, well, ever I suppose. Good for them. It's not like the tables mean anything anyway.

Reply 14

Greg.

forgetful-fairy

It's actually messed up this year. Imperial ask for A* how do they have lower entry requirements than Oxford?

It's actually the average UCAS points that students who go to that uni achieve, not the entry requirements. So Oxford might ask for 3A's (360 points) but the average student who accepts an offer from them might get about 500 UCAS points. :wink:

Still an awful table though. :p:

Reply 15

forgetful-fairy

Greg.

Still an awful table though. :p:

;P I knew this once, I'd like to say revision has replaced all sensible knowledge but I'm not too sure. It is ridiculous though and it's unfortunate that some people (including my obsessed mother) take them seriously. :s-smilie:

Reply 16

forgetful-fairy

AdHock

I don't understand the outrage directed at Lancaster. Sure, they did really well this year compared to, well, ever I suppose. Good for them. It's not like the tables mean anything anyway.

I do agree that Lancaster deserves less stick, I do only look at Physics in general but they do have brilliant research, I've seen some more surprising things in the table.

Reply 17

SouthernFreerider

as found on their site: (my comments in bold, and why it renders the table a big pile of useless crap)

"We have rated departments against the following criteria:

• Teaching quality, as rated by final-year students in the National Student Survey (NSS): percentage of students satisfied. Ive taken these survey's, they are a pile of subjective, non-consequential, crap. this is really the worst possible way to evaluate teaching quality.

• Feedback (assessment), as rated by final-year students in the NSS: percentage of students satisfied. as above. who puts morons in charge of influential newspapers?

• NSS results when final-year students were asked about the overall quality of their course. again, like above...

• Spending per student – given as a banded score out of 10.

• Staff-student ratio: number of students per member of teaching staff.

• Job prospects: proportion of graduates who find graduate-level employment, or study full-time, within six months of graduation. this criterion doesnt take into account the level of employment/education they end up in. so again, broadly useless.

• Value added: comparing students' individual degree results with their entry qualifications – given as a banded score out of 10. degrees classes aren't standardised, rendering this, again, useless.

• Entry qualifications (Ucas tariff score). at the middle/lower end this may be relevant, but in the top 10 everyone has pretty much 3 As, so the differences tend to be a bit random"

Reply 18

The_TSR_Dunce

table is crap, how is salford ranked higher than kings london for physics, i wouldnt take this seriously

Reply 19

username279036

Lmao Lancaster coming 6th discredits the whole table. It's a **** uni.

Would've been nice, but I don't think we can go around saying we are third in the country.