[Joinedup]

(Original post by Rainman88)
No. Because the point of the table is that the government are going to give more money to universities with large numbers of AAB+ students.

Sort of - they're not going to cap the student numbers on courses where the applicants are AAB+ and more students means more money.

The idea is to force the unis to compete harder for the AAB+ candidates.

I guess Oxbridge could grow rapidly if it wanted to... certainly some table topping uns will but it might actually be bad news for good unis a bit further down the table which are second favourite destinations for a lot of AAB+ candidates, those unis might end up having to lower their offers to fill their places.

see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-edu...-binary-divide

[chrislpp]

(Original post by Craig_D)
Does a university deserve status based on the ability of its students when they arrived? Or should it be derived from how much the university and its facilities improved its students?

Oxbridge sucks then

It's called Value added score

[Craig_D]

(Original post by chrislpp)
Oxbridge sucks then

It's called Value added score

Don't you agree that it's a more important factor in judging a university's status? I'm not for a second suggesting that Oxbridge aren't good, their facilities are surely fantastic, as ever the better the students initially are the harder it may be for them to improve further. On the other hand, universities may simply give very lenient grades in order to make it look like the students have improved more than they really have. These factors should of course be taken into account, and I wouldn't imply otherwise. That said, these tables are intended always as an advert for those at the top, they imply that those are the best, but I don't think that having the best applicants intrinsically means it will give the students the best learning experience.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by ColdVein)
Do UCL have their exams off campus? Where? LSE have them at the actual uni.

Oh god I don't know why but I was sent all over the bloody place.

[River85]

(Original post by heafymatt)
Physics at Durham is AAA.

No, it's increased to A*AA (as are all Joint Honours programmes and Natural Sciences). Maths were A*AA for 2011 entry.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/physics/undergraduate/courses/

Edit: - Oh, that's already been mentioned.

Does anyone else think the table would be more useful if it was AAA and above?

No, because it still won't be a particularly accurate reflection of a university's quality. Typical offers and entry standards only relate to how popular certain universities are in the minds of A-level applicants. Many, particularly middle class and privately educated applicants, have long favoured universities such as Durham. Whilst these universities are certainly amongst our strongest, it says little about a university's teaching quality or research. They also only give us a very broad idea of how good their intake is and not the finished product. I'm not even going to go into the debate about dumbing down of A-levels, but I will say that they are not always the best indicators of how academically capable a student is, and how he/she will perform at university (although there is, of course, some correlation).

I see no reason why we should take these nine or so universities as being a cut above the rest, particularly the rest of the Russell and 1994 Group universities.

[DeadBySunrise]

Spot on River, as always.

[legal_beagle]

There are two top universities. The rest of the top 15 or so are more or less comparable at undergrad.

I say this because some people might prefer a 2.1 from Oxbridge over a First from other universities. Nobody would prefer a 2.1 from LSE over a First from Bristol.

(Said as a successful graduate with no bone to pick or insecurities.)

The only exception is if you are planning to move abroad, where University of London's reputation is indeed strong.

[legal_beagle]

Also.

ITT: people who did well at A-level but haven't distinguished themselves at university by getting a First and thus have to cling to perceived tiny gradations in prestige which nobody who matters gives a toss about.

[slylion1]

(Original post by legal_beagle)
There are two top universities. The rest of the top 15 or so are more or less comparable at undergrad.

I say this because some people might prefer a 2.1 from Oxbridge over a First from other universities. Nobody would prefer a 2.1 from LSE over a First from Bristol.

(Said as a successful graduate with no bone to pick or insecurities.)

The only exception is if you are planning to move abroad, where University of London's reputation is indeed strong.

lse econ = nottingham econ

not really

[legal_beagle]

(Original post by slylion1)
lse econ = nottingham econ

not really

Nottingham econ 1st > LSE econ 2.1.

You didn't address my point.

[issyconnor]

(Original post by Focus08)
Don't listen to him. Make decisions for yourself and live your life, choose the course/uni you prefer

That's not even the point, though I just get incredibly annoyed when people make statements in such a definite manner (almost as if it's common knowledge) but then have no actual proof to back it up.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by arob752)
By some do you mean 1. (St Andrews)

Maybe Edinburgh as well.

In any case, it's probably not the nest indicator of where to go.

Birmingham seem to have the highest requirements for medicine, does that mean they are the best?

[slylion1]

(Original post by legal_beagle)
Nottingham econ 1st > LSE econ 2.1.

You didn't address my point.

lse econ 2i is the better degree. will get you into to a lot more 1st round interviews for top tier jobs.

[ColdVein]

(Original post by legal_beagle)
Nottingham econ 1st > LSE econ 2.1.

You didn't address my point.

Comparing a first with a 2.1 doesn't prove much.

[legal_beagle]

(Original post by slylion1)
lse econ 2i is the better degree. will get you into to a lot more 1st round interviews for top tier jobs.

Cool, you keep believing that.

[slylion1]

(Original post by legal_beagle)
Cool, you keep believing that.

for my industry (IB) yes that is the case whether you want to accept it or not.

For law I don't know alot but I heard the Magic Circle operates on a similar basis.

Am I wrong in believing that?

[legal_beagle]

(Original post by slylion1)
for my industry (IB) yes that is the case whether you want to accept it or not.

For law I don't know alot but I heard the Magic Circle operates on a similar basis.

Am I wrong in believing that?

I'll defer to you on IB because (a) you probs know more about it and (b) it's a strange, distorted industry. Law is different, in Magic Circle firms and top commercial barristers' chambers.

I'm not saying people don't discriminate between universities, because they obviously do, just that Oxford and Cambridge are the only places where as a general rule the perceived difference is so great that a 2.1 might = a 1st from another place. IB however may be different.

[slylion1]

(Original post by legal_beagle)
I'll defer to you on IB because (a) you probs know more about it and (b) it's a strange, distorted industry. Law is different, in Magic Circle firms and top commercial barristers' chambers.

I'm not saying people don't discriminate between universities, because they obviously do, just that Oxford and Cambridge are the only places where as a general rule the perceived difference is so great that a 2.1 might = a 1st from another place. IB however may be different.

ahh ok that correlates with what ive heard that oxbridge law is substantially better than other courses even lse and ucl.

In IB the top 6 unis have roughly an equal chance if you are doing the right subjects but after that your chances decrease dramatically.

[Txi]

(Original post by DeadBySunrise)
I don't see how Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Exeter, Leeds and Southampton would draw in any more AAB students when they are all of a similar standard.

Err you are either a cardiff or QB grad so I take what you say with a large bucket of salt.

You might be of striking distance of Leed and Wancester but realistically even the likes of UEA, Sussex have overtaken you.


End of the day , not for you to judge.let the people decide.

hehehe !

[Txi]

(Original post by Focus08)
I honestly don't see the validity of that statistic. It is indisputable that UCL is way better, but just doing a quick ranking of courses that they have in common suggests that UCL wins out 9/10 of the time. The Strand Polytechnic had for the first time one course to break (scraped it, lol) the 500 point barrier (applause, well done ). This is without the inclusion of stuff like UCL's econ department (500+), for instance, or the Poly's nursing school (we all know the story..)

Meh, who cares

he's dreaming UCL always beats KCL