(Original post by ultimate mashup)
Stats show that Brunel, Hull and Bradford has a similar facilities spending to leading modern universities, similar research grade and research income to leading modern universities, similar entry requirements (which I agree isn't necessarily a measure of quality but does mean the standard of students will be similar), similar graduate employment levels and graduate starting salaries and similar student satisfaction levels. Thats the reason they rank at around the same level in the league tables. And yet you say that none of the modern universities are anywhere near on par with the older ones?!!! lol!
Interestingly, I seem to have found my own set of stats, and they don't appear to entirely coincide with yours.
Oddly enough, there don't seem to be too many 'leading modern universities' mentioned.
Student satisfaction is a terrible indication of a university's quality - if anything, it may very well be the reason the league tables are sometimes dismissed; unless you agree with the Guardian's ranking of City above KCL and company because 'their students are happier', that is.
While I can't comment with certainty on anything relating to research or funding, this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...-england-table) seems to indicate that the older universities receive quite a bit more research funding - with one of them being awarded the highest amount outside of the RG and 1994 group.
As for entry standards; you're right. With the exception of Brunel, Oxford Brookes has, on average, higher entry standards than the old universities you mentioned. That being said, none of the other 'leading modern universities' have standards that come anywhere near Oxford B's.
To an extent, you *are* right, though. If only in the sense that it does appear that Oxford Brooke's is on par, if not slightly better than one or two 'old universities'.