Uni Rankings - national v world: what's more important to you? (Poll)

Poll

Which university rankings table, if any, do you consider more important?

I've noticed there are some very different results in terms of university rankings when looking at national and international tables. For example, Durham University is Ranked 5th in the UK and 85th in the world, whereas Kings College London is ranked 16th in the UK and 21st in the world. I realise this is simply a result of different criteria being considered when assessing the universities, but nevertheless, I wonder what the majority of people give more weight to.

Reply 1

jcockerill1

I'll more than likely only ever have a job in the UK, so international rankings means very little to me. I'll never go to Oxford/Cambridge/Imperial/LSE etc, so not too fussed about how they all stand internationally.

Reply 2

nofish4u

13

Last year i turned down my sheffield offer when i realised it was ranked 76th in the world.. so yes international matter to me but equally if im going to be based in the UK, which i probs will be, it makes little difference

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

Antifazian

16

I'd love to work and live abroad in the future, but realistically i'm more likely to be in UK for a while first so have focused more on UK rankings whilst keeping world ones in mind.

Reply 4

adam_zed

16

Well I take a gander at both.

Original post by nofish4u

Last year i turned down my sheffield offer when i realised it was ranked 76th in the world.. so yes international matter to me but equally if im going to be based in the UK, which i probs will be, it makes little difference

lol oooooooo 76th in the whole world! it must be bad...........

Reply 5

nofish4u

13

Original post by adam_zed

Well I take a gander at both.

lol oooooooo 76th in the whole world! it must be bad...........

ye i think 75 are better than it?

Reply 6

River85

17

Original post by nofish4u

ye i think 75 are better than it?

Erm....no.

If that's the case then how do you account for the OP's point? That some universities perform better in national rankings, comparetively speaking, than in international rankings? So how can Durham be better than Sheffield (going by its domestic ranking) but worse than Sheffield (using the international rankings).

Also have you noticed how much the rankings vary from one year to another? It's often the case that a university can rise or fall 40 places from one year to the next. So are those 39 universities all of a sudden better or worse in such a short space of time?

It's really not the case that in the real world there's this "ladder" of universities. That number 10 is better than number 11, or even number 28. In truth, especially for undergraduate education, I see little difference between Manchester, Sheffield, Warwick, LSE, Birmingham, Durham, York....this is generally speaking.

In a sense you're correct. The 75 other universities are "better" using the critera used in that specific table. But we can a) question the criteria they use which does have significant flaws and b) which is a sort of related point, realise that the various rankings whether domestic or international can vary so much.

Finally, I really don't think the THES league tables can be used as an accurate representation of "international prestige". If you're going to use them as an accurate representation of how large employers perceive the universities then just use the employer review within the THES rankings. I know that Durham are something like top 20 or 25 in the employer review, despite being 85th in the world. I know a few years back, when they weren't even in the top 100, I think they were 20th in the employer review (equal with Sheffield, actually). I still wouldn't recommend anyone does this as I'm sure these too vary from year to year and aren't immune to criticism.

But I have this question. If Sheffield rose up the rankings and the university you eventually chose dropped down (which is possible) then how would you feel? Regret?

Anyway, I don't see either as important. I didn't use either in making my decisions. I used course countent and location. I was aware of domestic league tables but I only glanced at a few at the start of sixth formas they were in the corridor. Even then, I think it was only the English table (and only really noticed Warwick being in first place).

I wasn't aware of the international league tables (that said, the THES tables were only published about three years after I applied to university) although, if someone told me they existed, I wouldn't have been surpised. I guess it just never occured to me.

So, in short, I don't see either of them as important.

Reply 7

Kerny

14

Original post by nofish4u

Last year i turned down my sheffield offer when i realised it was ranked 76th in the world.. so yes international matter to me but equally if im going to be based in the UK, which i probs will be, it makes little difference

Then you should turn down your Durham, Exeter and York offers (presuming you get them) because they are all ranked greater than 76th.

Reply 8

nofish4u

13

Original post by Kerny

Then you should turn down your Durham, Exeter and York offers (presuming you get them) because they are all ranked greater than 76th.

i fully intend to.. i just apply to uni for the fun of it -_-

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 9

nofish4u

13

Original post by River85

Erm....no.

But I have this question. If Sheffield rose up the rankings and the university you eventually chose dropped down (which is possible) then how would you feel? Regret?

Nope because i hated the city :P

But yes, international rankings do have their flaws, how can Oxford be ranked 15th in the world and 1st in Britain, whilst Cambridge is ranked 2nd in the world and 2nd in Britain. That being said, one of the key reasons for me turning down Sheffield was that fact that over the last few years it has hung around the 70s in the world rankings consistently. Call it shallow but prestige is one of main criteria i use/used to pick my unis

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 10

RamocitoMorales

21

Original post by nofish4u

Last year i turned down my sheffield offer when i realised it was ranked 76th in the world.. so yes international matter to me but equally if im going to be based in the UK, which i probs will be, it makes little difference

Are you an idiot? That's a very high international ranking... :facepalm:

Reply 11

nofish4u

13

Original post by RamocitoMorales

Are you an idiot? That's a very high international ranking... :facepalm:

quite the opposite :P if i was an idiot i wouldnt mind going somwhere ranked 76th

Reply 12

River85

17

Original post by nofish4u

Nope because i hated the city :P

But yes, international rankings do have their flaws, how can Oxford be ranked 15th in the world and 1st in Britain, whilst Cambridge is ranked 2nd in the world and 2nd in Britain. That being said, one of the key reasons for me turning down Sheffield was that fact that over the last few years it has hung around the 70s in the world rankings consistently. Call it shallow but prestige is one of main criteria i use/used to pick my unis

So why apply to Durham which, since the THES tables were first published in 2005, has fluctuated from 70 odd to 132nd? Though it's now about 50 places higher than two years ago it is stll lower than in 2005 and can easily fall again. Same applies to many universities really. Look at LSE's fall.

Prestige is subjective. Personally, if I were to focus on prestige I see no reason why the number of Nobel prize winners shouldn't be considered over a league table position. I don't know about Sheffield but this would place Liverpool or Aberdeen as being more prestigous than Warwick or Durham. I think that is quite reasonable and no more illogical than using league tables.

Still, if they are impotent to you. Free world and all that.