New Complete Uni League Tables out today
Scroll to see replies
Original post by crunchychips
It's funny how people always dismiss the criteria that somehow make them rank lower than other universities. To those people: what criteria would YOU use?
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
I for one clearly outlined what I considered to be good criteria above. Entry standards, good honours, job prospects. Research is completely irrelevant to an undergrad, student satisfaction is unquantifiable, facility spend is of negligible importance to most students (in Loughborough's case, nearly all, since most of it is directed into sport), student:staff ratio and the last two aswell are only relevant criteria insofar as they relate to the good honours and job prospects, which makes them redundant, since we have specific criteria for those.
What's wrong with student satisfaction? You may have great facilities, great researchers, but if undergrads can only use that small classroom right at the back of the great and new department building, and only the worst lecturers teach them, shouldn't that be taken into account?
The problem with student satisfaction, as I said above, is that it is totally unquantifiable. The reasons students have for giving a satisfaction rating are a complete mystery to us. They could be dissatisfied, as you say, for having a poor classroom environment and poor teaching; equally, they could be bitter about not being at their first choice or simply be having a terrible day when they give their rating. There is absolutely no way of knowing upon what basis a student has given a rating, which makes them all but meaningless; the total subjectivity of them means that what one negatively-rating student would consider poor quality you might find beneficial, yet you wouldn't know this since reasons are not given. It's one nebulous slush of anonymous subjectivity. You might as well not visit France for a holiday because a bunch of people on a travel website gave it a poor rating for subjective issues (which you might well have disagreed with) in certain parts, not even having experienced the whole (one course, certain facilities only, certain teaching only etc.).
One must also quesiton to what extent SS would be relevant even if it were quantifiable when all it intends to do is communicate the quality of the course in general (the specific elements of it remaining unknown), something which percentage of good honours and job prospects - both quantifiable criteria - demonstrate already with much more certainty.
The person above me said that proportion of good honours is somehow a better measure than spending. You do realise that this is probably one of the least useful criteria? Universities can set their boundaries wherever they want. If anything, it encourages grade inflation.
And you do realise that universities realise that their reputations are conjoined to the placement of their degree class boundaries? They realise that setting them too low will not magically escape the eyes of the media, employers and students and they will rapidly acquire reputations as soft, devaluing their education to employers and make them less attractive to students as a result; they will begin taking worse students and so the vicious cycle will continue. These are some of the best academics in the world we're talking about; they're not so foolish as to try to pull that manoevre.
In addition, most undergrad courses have at least some elements that are assessed externally by independents. Good honours is one of the most important criteria; the primary reason for attending university is to achieve a qualification. Knowing what sort of degree class one can expect to receive (e.g. needing 1st for competitive graduate jobs; 2:1 for MA etc) is extremely useful for any thinking applicant.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Meat is Murder
This.
I am a first year at Nottingham studying English and have to read a book a week, which in my second year will increase to two a week, and I am only a joint honours student! Contrasting this, a friend of mine is doing English Literature at Winchester and literally does sod all. They don't even have exams there lol.
I am a first year at Nottingham studying English and have to read a book a week, which in my second year will increase to two a week, and I am only a joint honours student! Contrasting this, a friend of mine is doing English Literature at Winchester and literally does sod all. They don't even have exams there lol.
And? What are their grade boundaries? Employers realise that a degree from Nottingham in English is superior to one from Winchester. The standard of applicant admitted to Winchester is much lower, hence there is an assumption that even graduates achieving 2:1s/1sts will probably also be of a lower calibre to similarly classed graduates of Nottingham, since courses become more difficult as the calibre of student increases. That's the principle I've tried explaining.
Bristol's English course is almost all coursework, yet it's one of the most respected in the country; one book a week is also pretty generous.
Original post by Tuerin
Bristol's English course is almost all coursework, yet it's one of the most respected in the country; one book a week is also pretty generous.
Bristol's English course is almost all coursework, yet it's one of the most respected in the country; one book a week is also pretty generous.
Note, I am a first year and a joint honours student, so one book a week is a fraction of the work 2nd year single honours English Lit students get.
What I posted was to support the other posters claim that having 'good honours' as a criteria is flawed because the difficulty of university courses vary between institution. Though, as River has pointed out, the difference in difficulty of course between Russell Group unis is probably insignificant.
Original post by Tuerin
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
I for one clearly outlined what I considered to be good criteria above. Entry standards, good honours, job prospects. Research is completely irrelevant to an undergrad, student satisfaction is unquantifiable, facility spend is of negligible importance to most students (in Loughborough's case, nearly all, since most of it is directed into sport), student:staff ratio and the last two aswell are only relevant criteria insofar as they relate to the good honours and job prospects, which makes them redundant, since we have specific criteria for those.
The problem with student satisfaction, as I said above, is that it is totally unquantifiable. The reasons students have for giving a satisfaction rating are a complete mystery to us. They could be dissatisfied, as you say, for having a poor classroom environment and poor teaching; equally, they could be bitter about not being at their first choice or simply be having a terrible day when they give their rating. There is absolutely no way of knowing upon what basis a student has given a rating, which makes them all but meaningless; the total subjectivity of them means that what one negatively-rating student would consider poor quality you might find beneficial, yet you wouldn't know this since reasons are not given. It's one nebulous slush of anonymous subjectivity. You might as well not visit France for a holiday because a bunch of people on a travel website gave it a poor rating for subjective issues (which you might well have disagreed with) in certain parts, not even having experienced the whole (one course, certain facilities only, certain teaching only etc.).
One must also quesiton to what extent SS would be relevant even if it were quantifiable when all it intends to do is communicate the quality of the course in general (the specific elements of it remaining unknown), something which percentage of good honours and job prospects - both quantifiable criteria - demonstrate already with much more certainty.
And you do realise that universities realise that their reputations are conjoined to the placement of their degree class boundaries? They realise that setting them too low will not magically escape the eyes of the media, employers and students and they will rapidly acquire reputations as soft, devaluing their education to employers and make them less attractive to students as a result; they will begin taking worse students and so the vicious cycle will continue. These are some of the best academics in the world we're talking about; they're not so foolish as to try to pull that manoevre.
In addition, most undergrad courses have at least some elements that are assessed externally by independents. Good honours is one of the most important criteria; the primary reason for attending university is to achieve a qualification. Knowing what sort of degree class one can expect to receive (e.g. needing 1st for competitive graduate jobs; 2:1 for MA etc) is extremely useful for any thinking applicant.
I for one clearly outlined what I considered to be good criteria above. Entry standards, good honours, job prospects. Research is completely irrelevant to an undergrad, student satisfaction is unquantifiable, facility spend is of negligible importance to most students (in Loughborough's case, nearly all, since most of it is directed into sport), student:staff ratio and the last two aswell are only relevant criteria insofar as they relate to the good honours and job prospects, which makes them redundant, since we have specific criteria for those.
The problem with student satisfaction, as I said above, is that it is totally unquantifiable. The reasons students have for giving a satisfaction rating are a complete mystery to us. They could be dissatisfied, as you say, for having a poor classroom environment and poor teaching; equally, they could be bitter about not being at their first choice or simply be having a terrible day when they give their rating. There is absolutely no way of knowing upon what basis a student has given a rating, which makes them all but meaningless; the total subjectivity of them means that what one negatively-rating student would consider poor quality you might find beneficial, yet you wouldn't know this since reasons are not given. It's one nebulous slush of anonymous subjectivity. You might as well not visit France for a holiday because a bunch of people on a travel website gave it a poor rating for subjective issues (which you might well have disagreed with) in certain parts, not even having experienced the whole (one course, certain facilities only, certain teaching only etc.).
One must also quesiton to what extent SS would be relevant even if it were quantifiable when all it intends to do is communicate the quality of the course in general (the specific elements of it remaining unknown), something which percentage of good honours and job prospects - both quantifiable criteria - demonstrate already with much more certainty.
And you do realise that universities realise that their reputations are conjoined to the placement of their degree class boundaries? They realise that setting them too low will not magically escape the eyes of the media, employers and students and they will rapidly acquire reputations as soft, devaluing their education to employers and make them less attractive to students as a result; they will begin taking worse students and so the vicious cycle will continue. These are some of the best academics in the world we're talking about; they're not so foolish as to try to pull that manoevre.
In addition, most undergrad courses have at least some elements that are assessed externally by independents. Good honours is one of the most important criteria; the primary reason for attending university is to achieve a qualification. Knowing what sort of degree class one can expect to receive (e.g. needing 1st for competitive graduate jobs; 2:1 for MA etc) is extremely useful for any thinking applicant.
Look, I'm not saying student satisfaction should determine all of the ranking (it's only one out of nine factors...), I'm saying that basing it a bit on subjective opinions isn't that bad. Yes, a few students might have had bad days, but on average, they will probably give a good indication of "satisfaction". This criterion captures what the other objective ones don't necessarily. A university might have great job prospects and high entry standards, simply because of its reputation - but its teaching might be very bad. Student satisfaction would reflect that. If there is a discrepancy between student satisfaction and other criteria, don't blame student satisfaction - find out WHY the student satisfaction rating is so low compared to the others.
Furthermore, just how quantifiable is the job prospects ranking? How is that calculated?
Original post by Meat is Murder
What I posted was to support the other posters claim that having 'good honours' as a criteria is flawed because the difficulty of university courses vary between institution. Though, as River has pointed out, the difference in difficulty of course between Russell Group unis is probably insignificant.
I tackled this point in this rest of the post.
Original post by crunchychips
Look, I'm not saying student satisfaction should determine all of the ranking (it's only one out of nine factors...), I'm saying that basing it a bit on subjective opinions isn't that bad.
I'm not saying you were saying that. What I said was that it's not worthy to be included at all because of its unquantifiable nature.
Yes, a few students might have had bad days, but on average, they will probably give a good indication of "satisfaction".
How do you know this? You don't. There is no way of knowing upon what basis students give their ratings. It could literally be anything. That is what makes them so meaningless.
This criterion captures what the other objective ones don't necessarily. A university might have great job prospects and high entry standards, simply because of its reputation - but its teaching might be very bad. Student satisfaction would reflect that.
A university's reputation consists of the quality of its education in the eyes of society and employers; to say that a university would have a good enough reputation to give great job prospects is to dismiss the relevance of good teaching standards altogether, making student satisfaction an unworthy criterion in the rankings.
If there is a discrepancy between student satisfaction and other criteria, don't blame student satisfaction - find out WHY the student satisfaction rating is so low compared to the others.
You can't. That's part of the problem. I wasn't blaming student satisfaction for anything; I was criticising its integrity as a criterion.
Furthermore, just how quantifiable is the job prospects ranking? How is that calculated?
It's based on factual data. I imagine they take a sample of graduates and break down employment/unemployment.
Original post by Tuerin
I'm not saying you were saying that. What I said was that it's not worthy to be included at all because of its unquantifiable nature.
How do you know this? You don't. There is no way of knowing upon what basis students give their ratings. It could literally be anything. That is what makes them so meaningless.
It's based on factual data. I imagine they take a sample of graduates and break down employment/unemployment.
How do you know this? You don't. There is no way of knowing upon what basis students give their ratings. It could literally be anything. That is what makes them so meaningless.
It's based on factual data. I imagine they take a sample of graduates and break down employment/unemployment.
What else could students base their ratings on?
Job prospects ratings also have problems. What if 99% of students get a job stacking shelves at a supermarket? Should that university really be ranked above a university where only 90% of students get a job, but those jobs are bankers, doctors, etc.?
Original post by crunchychips
What else could students base their ratings on?
Anything. Literally anything at all. 'Student satisfaction'; just repeat the term. Orwellian vaguery. There is so much a student could be dissatisfied with, relevant or not, justified or not, worthy of including in university rankings or not, that it makes SS a weakness in rankings.
Job prospects ratings also have problems. What if 99% of students get a job stacking shelves at a supermarket? Should that university really be ranked above a university where only 90% of students get a job, but those jobs are bankers, doctors, etc.?
I believe some rankings do try to differentiate between professional and non-professional jobs. In this job climate, however, any job is better than no job, and I would prefer to have the job prospects criterion which is based on some, if not totally discerning, factual evidence than the subjective slush of SS.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Tuerin
Thought I'd made that clear.
As I said, though, to place Loughborough above Bristol because it spends more on facilities is silly for two reasons: one, facility spend contributes very little to the quality of education for most students, especially but not exclusively humanities students like myself; two, the primary reason Loughborough spends so much on facilities is because of its emphasis on sport, which is even less relevant to the vast majority of students than were it primarily spent on academics.
Bristol is superior in the entry standards, proportion of good honours and professional prospects factors of the same table; those three factors are far and away the most important to most people; spend on facilities, student staff ratio and student satisfaction are all only relevant insofar as they contribute to the latter two of the former three factors. It is therefore totally nonsensical to place Loughborough above Bristol because it spends more on facilities and has higher student satisfaction than Bristol when these victories don't overturn Bristol's superior placing in good honours and prospects. Loughborough wins the battle; Bristol wins the war.
As I said, though, to place Loughborough above Bristol because it spends more on facilities is silly for two reasons: one, facility spend contributes very little to the quality of education for most students, especially but not exclusively humanities students like myself; two, the primary reason Loughborough spends so much on facilities is because of its emphasis on sport, which is even less relevant to the vast majority of students than were it primarily spent on academics.
Bristol is superior in the entry standards, proportion of good honours and professional prospects factors of the same table; those three factors are far and away the most important to most people; spend on facilities, student staff ratio and student satisfaction are all only relevant insofar as they contribute to the latter two of the former three factors. It is therefore totally nonsensical to place Loughborough above Bristol because it spends more on facilities and has higher student satisfaction than Bristol when these victories don't overturn Bristol's superior placing in good honours and prospects. Loughborough wins the battle; Bristol wins the war.
Huh ? how does having better facilities not improve your education ? Ever sat in a 150 + lecture where the guy was using a overhead projector - the old kind with the plastic sheets et al ?!
Yes indeed @ a place that called itself the ' oxbridge ' of the midlands ! yeah fancy that LOL !
Spending a lot on sports @ L'boro is completely justified - one of their hallmark courses is sport science. For that they have produced Olympic champions and RWC winners, exactly how they pitched themselves.
Original post by Tuerin
The problem with student satisfaction, as I said above, is that it is totally unquantifiable. The reasons students have for giving a satisfaction rating are a complete mystery to us. They could be dissatisfied, as you say, for having a poor classroom environment and poor teaching; equally, they could be bitter about not being at their first choice or simply be having a terrible day when they give their rating. There is absolutely no way of knowing upon what basis a student has given a rating, which makes them all but meaningless
You do realise that student satisfaction isn't based on a simple "are you satisfied" score yes?
The questions considered by the CUG ranking is the average agreement with the following statements:
Staff are good at explaining things
Staff have made the subject interesting
Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching
The course is intellectually stimulating
The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance
Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair
Feedback on my work has been prompt
I have received detailed comments on my work
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are concerned
Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
The course is well organised and is running smoothly
The course has helped me to present myself with confidence
My communication skills have improved
As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
only 1/19 of the score for student satisfaction in the CUG is based on an unspecific "overall I'm satisfied" statement - the rest refer to specific areas that you would HOPE 100% of students would be able to agree with
Original post by Tuerin
It's based on factual data. I imagine they take a sample of graduates and break down employment/unemployment.
Sorry but no it isn't any more factual than the NSS - like the NSS it's a survey result.
It's based on a survey of graduates 6 months after graduation - they say what they're doing, noone checks that it is accurate. Employed graduates are split into "graduate" or "non graduate" jobs based on their (self reported) job title, graduates in study are split into "graduate" and "non graduate" study based on their (self reported) type of study.
As with the NSS results the survey methodology means that you can compare universities (because every university has to follow the same rules on collecting the results and meet a very high response rate) - but it still just covers what people said they were doing when being hassled by market researchers over the phone. In fact with the graduate stats it's even LESS robust - noone else can fill in the NSS survey for you but the DLHE survey of graduates can be completed on your behalf by your parents or another family member.
Original post by Zenomorph
Huh ? how does having better facilities not improve your education ? Ever sat in a 150 + lecture where the guy was using a overhead projector - the old kind with the plastic sheets et al ?!
Yes indeed @ a place that called itself the ' oxbridge ' of the midlands ! yeah fancy that LOL !
Yes indeed @ a place that called itself the ' oxbridge ' of the midlands ! yeah fancy that LOL !
What I actually said was that, in the context of an undergraduate degree, facility spend is going to have a fairly small effect on your education. Yes, you may get some eyestrain in a lecture but ultimately if the teaching is there and you are motivated and intelligent enough, this will not stop you from achieving. I was more specifically criticising the irrelevance to most prospective students of the massive portion of L'borough's facility spend which goes into sport, left unmentioned by the Guide.
Spending a lot on sports @ L'boro is completely justified - one of their hallmark courses is sport science. For that they have produced Olympic champions and RWC winners, exactly how they pitched themselves.
Yes, and that's all well and good but the problem is that when included in the overall ranking prospective applicants might understandably interpret it to mean that L'borough spend more on facilities generally, when really it's focused very heavily on sporting facilities, which most undergraduates are not overly interested in. How they pitch themselves and how TCUG pitch them are two different things. More damagingly, this recognition of L'borough's sporting excellence has resulted in it being placed above universities which most would consider to be superior academically, which is what counts most for most students. It is an imbalance of priorities, in my view.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by PQ
You do realise that student satisfaction isn't based on a simple "are you satisfied" score yes?
The questions considered by the CUG ranking is the average agreement with the following statements:
Staff are good at explaining things
Staff have made the subject interesting
Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching
The course is intellectually stimulating
The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance
Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair
Feedback on my work has been prompt
I have received detailed comments on my work
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are concerned
Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
The course is well organised and is running smoothly
The course has helped me to present myself with confidence
My communication skills have improved
As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
only 1/19 of the score for student satisfaction in the CUG is based on an unspecific "overall I'm satisfied" statement - the rest refer to specific areas that you would HOPE 100% of students would be able to agree with
The questions considered by the CUG ranking is the average agreement with the following statements:
Staff are good at explaining things
Staff have made the subject interesting
Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching
The course is intellectually stimulating
The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance
Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair
Feedback on my work has been prompt
I have received detailed comments on my work
Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are concerned
Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
The course is well organised and is running smoothly
The course has helped me to present myself with confidence
My communication skills have improved
As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
only 1/19 of the score for student satisfaction in the CUG is based on an unspecific "overall I'm satisfied" statement - the rest refer to specific areas that you would HOPE 100% of students would be able to agree with
Yes, but look at how subjective all of these questions are. What would be 'well organised' to one student would not to another; what would be 'prompt' and 'well advanced' to one would not to another. What is 'detailed feedback' to someone traditionally used to barely any will be barely any to someone used to huge amounts of attention. They are still all completely unquantifiable and therefore, in my opinion, meaningless. Unlike with the job survey, where graduates would be required to submit hard facts, SS is not just subjective but arbitrary.
Sorry but no it isn't any more factual than the NSS - like the NSS it's a survey result.
It's based on a survey of graduates 6 months after graduation - they say what they're doing, noone checks that it is accurate. Employed graduates are split into "graduate" or "non graduate" jobs based on their (self reported) job title, graduates in study are split into "graduate" and "non graduate" study based on their (self reported) type of study.
As with the NSS results the survey methodology means that you can compare universities (because every university has to follow the same rules on collecting the results and meet a very high response rate) - but it still just covers what people said they were doing when being hassled by market researchers over the phone. In fact with the graduate stats it's even LESS robust - noone else can fill in the NSS survey for you but the DLHE survey of graduates can be completed on your behalf by your parents or another family member.
It's based on a survey of graduates 6 months after graduation - they say what they're doing, noone checks that it is accurate. Employed graduates are split into "graduate" or "non graduate" jobs based on their (self reported) job title, graduates in study are split into "graduate" and "non graduate" study based on their (self reported) type of study.
As with the NSS results the survey methodology means that you can compare universities (because every university has to follow the same rules on collecting the results and meet a very high response rate) - but it still just covers what people said they were doing when being hassled by market researchers over the phone. In fact with the graduate stats it's even LESS robust - noone else can fill in the NSS survey for you but the DLHE survey of graduates can be completed on your behalf by your parents or another family member.
Unlike SS, the job prospects criterion, though also completed by survey, are based on hard facts. I doubt graduates are going to actively lie about their status and, competent families permitting, parents and siblings should be able to remember the basic information of their blood's career progress just fine. It's a totally different kettle of fish.
Thank you for all this information.
Original post by Selym95
Absolutely mental: peers at my school are actually going through the hassle of trying to get their firm/insurance choices changed because of the new results of these league tables. I just don't understand!
Ask them where their preferred university is ranked in the 2016 league table.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by aari
East Anglia ahead of Newcastle and Leeds?! Are they bloody kidding?!
It is 2 places ahead of Newcastle when it comes to league tables 2 places is essentially nothing.
However at 32nd up from 34th your biggest issue with Leeds is that UEA is ahead of them? Kent, Sussex, Royal Holloway, QUB and Aston all of which ahead of Leeds seem to sit just fine with you?
Original post by Tuerin
What I actually said was that, in the context of an undergraduate degree, facility spend is going to have a fairly small effect on your education. Yes, you may get some eyestrain in a lecture but ultimately if the teaching is there and you are motivated and intelligent enough, this will not stop you from achieving. I was more specifically criticising the irrelevance to most prospective students of the massive portion of L'borough's facility spend which goes into sport, left unmentioned by the Guide.
Yes, and that's all well and good but the problem is that when included in the overall ranking prospective applicants might understandably interpret it to mean that L'borough spend more on facilities generally, when really it's focused very heavily on sporting facilities, which most undergraduates are not overly interested in. How they pitch themselves and how TCUG pitch them are two different things. More damagingly, this recognition of L'borough's sporting excellence has resulted in it being placed above universities which most would consider to be superior academically, which is what counts most for most students. It is an imbalance of priorities, in my view.
Yes, and that's all well and good but the problem is that when included in the overall ranking prospective applicants might understandably interpret it to mean that L'borough spend more on facilities generally, when really it's focused very heavily on sporting facilities, which most undergraduates are not overly interested in. How they pitch themselves and how TCUG pitch them are two different things. More damagingly, this recognition of L'borough's sporting excellence has resulted in it being placed above universities which most would consider to be superior academically, which is what counts most for most students. It is an imbalance of priorities, in my view.
No no no, You have agreed and contradicted yourself all in one go - congrats.
As a matter of the ' OOM ' also had crap teaching as does another wannabe famous highly political university down south (who also have crap facilities - so much that it's worse than the ex poly next door).
So it seems the 2 go hand in hand. In any case if you think not even having a LCD giant screen for mega lectures is a good thing then I suggest you fork out 40k and head up there, there are no shortage of places despite what they say.
You can only get away with crap facilities if your teaching is absolutely top class and that for most place is untrue.
L'boro does a lot of very successful sport degrees which need up dated facilities, what part of that don't you get or are you going to start a circular argument?
I bet you go to a RG 2 uni !
Original post by aari
East Anglia ahead of Newcastle and Leeds?! Are they bloody kidding?!
Cause RG2 unis are pretty c*&9. that's why
Student satisfaction seems to make up a significant proportions of these tables. Some people lie about satisfaction to make their university seem better. Look at Edinburgh and KCL for example. Score really well in most things but for satisfaction they end up in 18th and 19th respectfully. In fact when you look at job prospects, KCL is 4th...
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
The **** is a RG2 university?
? ?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Guardian/Daily Mail Uni/Times Rankings 2024
- Is Oxford reapplication truly something I should do?
- geography application
- Uni of Leeds wait time - psychology
- University Rankings Herriot Watt, Dundee or Strathclyde
- loughborough vs lancaster for computer science
- Economics BSc
- Disparity between national and international league tables?
- 'Bad vibes' from a University Open Day
- Choosing top 5 universities
- English Degree Subject Requirements
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- N/A
- Rankings for modern langauges?
- Masters in Sport and Exercise Nutrition
- applied for unis only close, now regretting it
- ucas rank or guardian rank
- MSc Psychology (Conversion/Online Learning)
- Oxford Or Cambridge Geography?
- University of Kent or Canterbury Christ Church University for Psychology?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
