This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The final say on university leauge tables

OP

?

Warwick was one of only 13 universities worldwide to get a perfect employer reputation score in the 2013 QS table. Edinburgh didn't.<----do you seriously believe these flawed QS table?

The fact that you even think Durham is slightly better than Bristol or york, shows me you have no idea!

York is ranked in the top 10 by RAE (2008) while it is respectable, it is not a power house.

There are more world famous professors at Edinburgh than at Warwick, please go check it out.

You keep giving me stats on flawed league tables.

I go to a Russel group university.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 41

SR255

What the **** am I reading?

This is nothing but a list of universities that inflate your head the most "I go to St Toppington university which is 500 years old, built of solid marble and has 50 nobel prize winners. Some of it's departments aren't the best anymore but who cares! The guy who invented the famous fusion fluxmometer went there 50 years ago! When I tell employers that they will definitely give me a job!"

Reply 42

LucyTheWeird

2

Lancaster's, good isn't it? Why isn't it on the list?

Reply 43

Cutmeloose

15

You're a total idiot, but yes sir. I will accept this as the holy grail of uni rankings.

I fear that he and LutherVan are in cahoots together :frown:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 44

ABEngineer

Who gives you the authority to create a 'definitive' league table? You're as bad as LutherVan -apparently an 'independent analyst

They are one and the same
- He uses "overhyped" like luthervan does something that's very unbritish. Sounds American to me.

- He places Edinburgh high like Luthervan. Most English students don't rate Edinburgh too highly not because of quality because its like in another planet (sorry scots).

- Spews the exact same stuff like Nobel prize affiliation, alumni and history, IB hype, obsession with Warwick, the desire to place KCL within the groups of Warwick, Bristol and Durham instead of its appropriate position with Manchester. KCL alumni or actual affiliates have not even won a nobel prize for decades.

- Living in the past.

- Knee jerk reaction. He did not bother to cover his tracks smartly too (directly attacked Warwick instead of keeping his mouth shut while posting that ranking) so I don't think he would be too offended with the association with luthervan.

What the **** am I reading?

This is nothing but a list of universities that inflate your head the most "I go to St Toppington university which is 500 years old, built of solid marble and has 50 nobel prize winners. Some of it's departments aren't the best anymore but who cares! The guy who invented the famous fusion fluxmometer went there 50 years ago! When I tell employers that they will definitely give me a job!"

Well said.

What you are reading is the extent of human insecurities. People are responsible for defining their meaning to life, and some get their meaning from grand constructions of what school they go to. It is like religion, and patriotism, both meaningless concepts but which men are willing to lie and die for.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 45

ABEngineer

it means a lot.

look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.

2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.

3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.

Look, you are not wrong but you are shooting at the wrong target.

You are discussing current reputation of a school versus historical (past reputation) or history as Luthervan (sorry ssxx) put it. ssxx can't see the difference because he is not-so-bright.

Yes, the current reputation of a school defines what what types of academics it can draw, and what students it can draw.

Its just like an insecure student from Manchester claiming that it is a top 10 University based on world ranking, nobel laureate affiliation, and that if you remove the Nursing, Social work and every school, it student intake would be similar to Cambridge so it is a top 3 University.

Reply 46

username56780055

13

Wouldn't you consider York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, and Bristol to be on a tier 1.5

Reply 47

nulli tertius

21

Original post by PQ

Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables?

When the cookie crumbles, when the fat lady sings, when you have followed the second star on the right and carried on until morning and on the 12th of Never, can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the OP's league table is any worse than any of the others?

Reply 48

ssxx

OP

No, places such as Manchester, Leeds, nott only come lower in the league table because they offer far too many degrees, but these universities have some top departments which are equal to or better than departments in York, Warwick, Durham, Bristol ect therefore they all are grouped togeather in tier 2.

Reply 49

ssxx

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

When the cookie crumbles, when the fat lady sings, when you have followed the second star on the right and carried on until morning and on the 12th of Never, can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the OP's league table is any worse than any of the others?

You have such a way with words :colondollar:

Reply 50

izzypetrie

2

Original post by ssxx

Well you managed to type 3 words.

Here have a neg, it is one me!

*goes to neg post*
damn already negged the OP

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 51

username969261

13

Original post by ssxx

There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible. All these people ranking tier 1,2,3,3,5 as if there are big differences.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...

Tier 1

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)

Tier 2

York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.

Tier 3

The rest of the universities, not prestigious or world leading but some have good departments.

Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.

Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.

Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.

Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.

What you have done here, is claim all league tables are utter rubbish, and created a league table based on nobel prize affiliation.

(News flash, not everyone will win or give a **** about winning nobel prizes)

Reply 52

FO12DY

13

Original post by ssxx

Warwick was one of only 13 universities worldwide to get a perfect employer reputation score in the 2013 QS table. Edinburgh didn't.<----do you seriously believe these flawed QS table?

York is ranked in the top 10 by RAE (2008) while it is respectable, it is not a power house.

You keep giving me stats on flawed league tables.

I go to a Russel group university.

QS is flawed, but RAE is golddust?

My guess is your "Russel group university" is way down on QS, but ranks highly on RAE.

Edit:
I bet it's so far down on QS you couldn't even find it :lol:

Actually, it's probably Edinburgh, given your defence of it and seemingly random inclusion in "Tier 1"

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 53

Alexandra's Box

17

Is Cardiff particularly better than Leicester, Sussex, QMUL etc?

Reply 54

FO12DY

13

Original post by Alexandra's Box

Is Cardiff particularly better than Leicester, Sussex, QMUL etc?

I'd say Cardiff, QMUL > Leicester, Sussex.

But it depends what for, obviously. (Something the OP fails to consider at all..)

Reply 55

scapepower

I am going to a tier 1 university yet its total nonsense to rank them by nobel prize winners in the past.

Please rank on teaching quality, prospects and so on.

Reply 56

ssxx

OP

Original post by Alexandra's Box

Is Cardiff particularly better than Leicester, Sussex, QMUL etc?

Yes.

Reply 57

Alexandra's Box

17

Original post by ssxx

Yes.

How? For every subject?

Reply 58

ssxx

OP

Original post by scapepower

I am going to a tier 1 university yet its total nonsense to rank them by nobel prize winners in the past.

Please rank on teaching quality, prospects and so on.

Nobel prize was one factor! I did rank them on teaching as well.
Prospects is misleading, it does not show, the type of job or future earning or prestige of job.