Rank UK Universities by Prestige

It is the person who ultimately gets the job, based on their abilities and work experience. University name is typically of little to no importance, though there are obviously exceptions.

Prestige is abstract and to some extent subjective.

For example, didn't you once say that Warwick isn't well known outside the UK? Strange, then, that most of the international students obsessed with prestige and recognition of UK universities overseas actually place Warwick as

Any major employer will be aware of all universities in the country, particularly Russell Group universities. In fact, some of the largest, most targeted universities in the country are not in your list.

In fact, in global employer reviews universities universities such as Durham, Warwick and Bath are higher, or as high, than some of the universities in your list.

So where did you pull your list from?

Go and look at world rankings such as QS rankings, in order to get a better picture, because they rank unis on the basis of citations, international outlook, teaching, research and inovation and reputation with employera..while domestic rankings concentrate on the feedback of current students and how satisfied they are, and many unis force theyr students to fill these out. Manchester for example does not, and therefore it does not do too well on domestic rankings.

I created my list based on my perceptions as an international student, and I consulted all of the UK newspaper league tables along with world ranking sites.

You're right that I do not value the likes of Durham, Warwick or Bath the way that I do the universities in more prominent international cities but I have a reason for this. From my understanding of the public university systems in place in the UK and Canada, universities in larger thriving communities manage to raise more funding for research and expansion. While Oxford and Cambridge certainly will continue to prosper I do not see other universities in small communities like Durham, Warwick or Bath continuing to grow, rather I suspect each of the institutions will run into substantial financial trouble in the coming years. These are institutions with limited potential for expansion and few people have heard of them outside of the UK, I had to put the likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester above them. Add to this that the Golden Triangle of universities which are historically the most prestigious English universities and St. Andrews which has established itself with the English elites and there you have my table.

You're right that I do not value the likes of Durham, Warwick or Bath the way that I do the universities in more prominent international cities but I have a reason for this. From my understanding of the public university systems in place in the UK and Canada, universities in larger thriving communities manage to raise more funding for research and expansion.

Erm, not really.

The amount of research money they get is partly determined by their research output. The universities in larger cities also tend to be larger universities, often with medical schools. This is why.

You do realise that LSE has the smallest research income of all Russell Group universities (it certainly did before the recent expansion of the Russell Group). LSE is a social science institution, which doesn't attract as much funding as the sciences. But does this mean it's in financial trouble and can't expand?

Oh dear.

Sorry, but you have no idea who university funding works. You're clueless and I just can't be arsed any more.

These universities are not in financial trouble, no more than larger universities, and can (and are) "expanding".

That's all I have to say about this utterly absurd thread.

Whilst I don't know much about Warwick or Bath, Durham is the 3rd oldest university in England and actually is described as a 'public research university'. They recently added Queen's Campus in Stockton which was a very significant expansion. Durham has a collegiate structure similar to that of Oxford and Cambridge. Durham is one of the most important historic towns, whereas industrial cities like those you've mentioned only really began to thrive in Victorian times. Yes, they are bigger cities, which are well known outside of the UK, but I think it's impossible to argue that being a bigger city makes their university more prestigious than one of the original universities of the country.

I would be willing to bet you or anyone on this board that in 10 years time the 10 universities I have selected will be the 10 best universities in the United Kingdom, and I'm not just talking about prestige.

Unis with the best students doesn't really mean prestigious, but if you're interested in that pointless ivy league tag then: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8635891/Top-students-concentrated-in-just-12-elite-universities.html

Manchester, Durham, Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham, Leeds, Exeter, Bristol, Warwick, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton.

I think prestige comes from age of university, citations, quality of teaching etc.

It is the person who ultimately gets the job, based on their abilities and work experience. University name is typically of little to no importance, though there are obviously exceptions.

Prestige is abstract and to some extent subjective.

For example, didn't you once say that Warwick isn't well known outside the UK? Strange, then, that most of the international students obsessed with prestige and recognition of UK universities overseas actually place Warwick as

Any major employer will be aware of all universities in the country, particularly Russell Group universities. In fact, some of the largest, most targeted universities in the country are not in your list.

In fact, in global employer reviews universities universities such as Durham, Warwick and Bath are higher, or as high, than some of the universities in your list.

So where did you pull your list from?

I've never seen anyone either put together a cogent argument that it's inevitable that employers would have graded university preferences or shown statements from employers demonstrating that they do.

Oxford, Cambridge
UCL
Warwick, Durham, St Andrews

Plus Imperial and LSE.

Then any of

Edinburgh, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Bath, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, KCL plus probably one or two others I've forgotten.

As for your comment that universities in smaller cities (and Coventry is not a particularly small city, by the way) cannot easily expand, what do you mean by this?