[cashmoneyorg]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...de-mathematics

12th on the list but only 200 UCAS points ?

[Historophilia]

In my view the Guardian rankings are pretty suspect, the lump History and History of Art in together despite them being completely seperate subjects with very different Uni having strengths in the respective subjects.

So the answer is that no it isn't very well rated, the idea that they rate above UCL, Bath, Bristol, Durham and the like is bizarre.

In my view this ranking rings much truer: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...?s=Mathematics

[The Phelps]

I don't know anything about maths or Greenwich, but this might still help.

A lot of the ratings go on improvement in the University. Building new facilities counts as improvement so if Greenwich built a massive Olympic sized sports area last year they will jump up the University ranking table even though education standards haven't moved. At least I know that plays some part in the rating and might explain it.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by cashmoneyorg)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...de-mathematics

12th on the list but only 200 UCAS points ?

It is very simple. Read the figures.

Greenwich scores very highly on student satisfaction. Only 55% of students at Imperial are satisfied with feedback from their lecturers. 87% at Greenwich are.

Now that is also likely to have an impact on the other area in which Greenwich scores well-value added. Greenwich is very good at turning sows ears into silk purses. Imperial on the other hand takes very bright students, and produces results very similar to its intake.

[around]

Because the Guardian league tables are pretty bad.

[NuclearFusion]

The Guardian league tables are notoriously inaccurate, there is no way that Greenwich should be rated 12th for Maths, not even close.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
The Guardian league tables are notoriously inaccurate, there is no way that Greenwich should be rated 12th for Maths, not even close.

What do you mean by inaccurate?

Do you mean that the Guardian are unable to do the arithmetic correctly to produce their results?

Or do you mean something else, and if so what do you mean?

[a.partridge]

It they don't mean there is an error in the calculations... they just mean the criteria of assessment is flawed!

Which it is...

league tables are bad...subject league tables are even worse - don't base your education on this.

the physics maths and chemistry departments in my uni have been placed from third in the country to ~15th!

Some of these tables put manchester ( I dont go there ) as low as 50th in the UK which is just crazy when it's one of our mostly highly rated internationally with a big research budget and good professors...

(for instance)

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a.partridge)
It they don't mean there is an error in the calculations... they just mean the criteria of assessment is flawed!

I am being provocative and I entirely agree with your sentiments about basing life decisions on them.

However, I am going to push it further.

In what way are the criteria flawed?

[a.partridge]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am being provocative and I entirely agree with your sentiments about basing life decisions on them.

However, I am going to push it further.

In what way are the criteria flawed?

I'm not an expert on the guardians tables or it's measures but there are a number of common flaws in these.

1) (as some have mentioned) There is too much emphasis on student satisfaction.

not only is this something that is difficult to define (is it a problem with the teaching or is it just in an awful or expensive town or is there something with career prospects ... or well you get the idea it could be anything)

2) league tables that include 'value added' favor lower uni's

- partly because they have a more nurturing teaching style
- partly because the students give them more to work with compared
to places where students may already have A*A*A* and there's less room to add.


3) Papers and their writers are political and they can bias the stats to favor uni's that they already favor

4) entry points can be inflated by international qualifications which translate into a lot of ucas points. London uni's with equal entry grades to places like bristol and durham will have higher ucas averages because of more internationals

5) it's hard to quantify the quality of professors / teaching

6) positions fluctuate wildly from year to year

7) the stats could give a measure of something... but generally what most students want to know is how valued it will be when they come to look for a job and that's the most important factor to get overlooked!

The only real measure for it they have is starting salaries, which can be pretty non informative about the future of the career

% in jobs is another one... but again.. what jobs.. where...


you won't be able to point out an ephemeral league table position on your entry year on your CV to explain why your employers never heard of it and it's in a massively different position now you see

well that's what i've gathered in all my uni anguish

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by a.partridge)
I'm not an expert on the guardians tables or it's measures but there are a number of common flaws in these.

1) (as some have mentioned) There is too much emphasis on student satisfaction.

not only is this something that is difficult to define (is it a problem with the teaching or is it just in an awful or expensive town or is there something with career prospects ... or well you get the idea it could be anything)

2) league tables that include 'value added' favor lower uni's

- partly because they have a more nurturing teaching style
- partly because the students give them more to work with compared
to places where students may already have A*A*A* and there's less room to add.


3) Papers and their writers are political and they can bias the stats to favor uni's that they already favor

4) entry points can be inflated by international qualifications which translate into a lot of ucas points. London uni's with equal entry grades to places like bristol and durham will have higher ucas averages because of more internationals

5) it's hard to quantify the quality of professors / teaching

6) positions fluctuate wildly from year to year

7) the stats could give a measure of something... but generally what most students want to know is how valued it will be when they come to look for a job and that's the most important factor to get overlooked!

The only real measure for it they have is starting salaries, which can be pretty non informative about the future of the career

% in jobs is another one... but again.. what jobs.. where...


you won't be able to point out an ephemeral league table position on your entry year on your CV to explain why your employers never heard of it and it's in a massively different position now you see

well that's what i've gathered in all my uni anguish

A*. A very good analysis that doesn't fall into the traps of either:-

"It doesn't agree with the league table in my head so it must be wrong"; or

"I have very good A levels so lets remove/discredit every metric except entry grades"

[Teras]

(Original post by cashmoneyorg)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...de-mathematics

12th on the list but only 200 UCAS points ?

I am studying at Mathematics at Greenwich, and I must say the maths department is superb. The quality of teaching is excellent and the lecturers are always willing to help if you have any problems. I would recommend Greenwich to all my friends and family who want to study maths, other universities maths department are soo crap according to the experience I heard from my other friends.

[NuclearFusion]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
What do you mean by inaccurate?

Do you mean that the Guardian are unable to do the arithmetic correctly to produce their results?

Or do you mean something else, and if so what do you mean?

What I mean is that they place far too much emphasis on student satisfaction (which is often very inaccurate for one thing) and on value added, an employer will not care about either of these factors. So if you want an accurate picture of how a future employer will view a university, don't look to the Guardian's League table for guidance.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
What I mean is that they place far too much emphasis on student satisfaction (which is often very inaccurate for one thing) and on value added, an employer will not care about either of these factors. So if you want an accurate picture of how a future employer will view a university, don't look to the Guardian's League table for guidance.

Although there have been one or two cases of student satisfaction fraud, I do not believe the student satisfaction figures are that inaccurate.

Employers aren't interested in student satisfaction or value added. Employers are interested in people with good degrees. The point about student satisfaction and value added is that they are surrogates for quality of teaching.

Some students will always get through regardless of teaching quality, but others won't.

[RamocitoMorales]

I don't think Greenwich even has a straight maths course.

[cashmoneyorg]

(Original post by Teras)
I am studying at Mathematics at Greenwich, and I must say the maths department is superb. The quality of teaching is excellent and the lecturers are always willing to help if you have any problems. I would recommend Greenwich to all my friends and family who want to study maths, other universities maths department are soo crap according to the experience I heard from my other friends.

That's one satisfied student!

[cashmoneyorg]

(Original post by RamocitoMorales)
I don't think Greenwich even has a straight maths course.

It does. It's only a backup anyway so I'm not that worried just curious.

[rainbow_kisses]

(Original post by cashmoneyorg)
It does. It's only a backup anyway so I'm not that worried just curious.

What are your other choices?

[k9markiii]

(Original post by cashmoneyorg)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...de-mathematics

12th on the list but only 200 UCAS points ?

In 2011, when I applied Royal Holloway was ranked 2nd with them but about 25th with complete university guide and Times. As a small institution, it also varies a lot year on year.

[cashmoneyorg]

(Original post by rainbow_kisses)
What are your other choices?

Lboro , Brunel