How reliable are League Tables ?

I'm pretty sure that someone has already created a thread like this but I would like to make one specifically for myself.

How reliable are they?

Lancaster is currently ranked above Kings College London, Manchester, Sheffield etc.. How so?

How come Leicester is ranked above Sheffield, Manchester, Edinburgh and Kings College in almost every league table?

I don't get it.. Are those universities THAT good? And if not then how do you know how good they actually are...

Let us start with your preconceptions. Why do you think that Lancaster and Leicester shouldn't be ranked above the universities you mention?

Top 10 are generally what I would expect
Between 20-30, they are the universities I would expect, but not always in the order I would expect.

As long as you like the institution you are at and the future is bright, there is nothing to be worrying about.

Not very, in all honesty, but it depends what you want.

Examine the methodology and decide for yourself if it covers what you think is important at university. As a starting point, no league tables contain anything relating to an independently-assessed teaching standard, and none contain any course content analysis at all. Undergraduates don't do research, and there's no suggestion that researchers make good teachers at undergraduate level. Some league tables consider how environmentally-friendly the university is.

It's actually quite useful to analyse them properly; anyone taking statistics at face value without examining the source or quality will probably not go far on most degree-level courses.

I think the criteria used to make league tables is more useful at postgraduate level myself. For undergrads they're essentially a list of universities ordered by income, how much they care about being ranked highly, and some vague approximation of academic reputation.

So in short, they aren't accurate for undergrads.

How would you go about assessing the actual university or the course you want to study?

There is, because let's say you like Lancaster and you're proud because it's in the top 10 (league table wise) then it suddenly drops down to 20th or 30th 2 years after you went there... You will feel as if you have made the wrong decision by studying there and then you will start to feel as if a degree from that uni is worthless

It's difficult really. It's impossible to accurately assess the standard of a course. As a next best thing, I'd look at trying to get hold of the course content (it's usually online), look at the staff, find testimonials from existing students, visit and see if the environment seems to suit you, look at staff/student ratios, check library and other facilities, and so on.

Certain fields do care about ranking, or are otherwise elitist. The 'elite' firms in investment banking, law and so on tend to recruit from specific universities. It's also worth checking what you hope to do in the future and see if they have 'rank' requirements or relationships with certain universities.

1 - Non Russell Group universities

2 - Their research assessment doesn't score as high as the others mentioned

3 - MAIN reason, because people tend to talk more about the others (apparently they are more known)

Depends. Some go to the university because of its ranking, others for the degree.
If you have a great job 5 years down the line, why would you be looking back at league tables?

Kings is pretty prestigious. Even if it dropped down to 30th spot in the league table, it wouldn't really matter. I doubt most employers look at league tables. If they saw Kings on your CV, I'm sure they would be more impressed than East Anglia which is just one spot under Kings apparently.

I care about a degree, how the uni looks or where it is doesn't bother me.

IF I get a job I wouldn't care about league tables but the question is, would I ?

I'm going into a very competitive field and most firms want those graduating from Elite Russel Group universities or UK leading universities...

My only two options are:

Leicester - High on league tables

Queen Mary London - Average Russel group uni ( not elite )

1. Shouldn't make any difference at all. Why would it?
2. I can only suppose that you're adverting to tables produced for undergraduates such that the weighting given to this measure is reduced.
3. Why on earth would the league tables reflect talkedaboutedness?

Essentially, it seems that you will suppose the league tables accurate to the extent that they comport with your pre-existing notions. Why bother looking then?

I'm pretty sure that someone has already created a thread like this but I would like to make one specifically for myself.

How reliable are they?

Lancaster is currently ranked above Kings College London, Manchester, Sheffield etc.. How so?

How come Leicester is ranked above Sheffield, Manchester, Edinburgh and Kings College in almost every league table?

I don't get it.. Are those universities THAT good? And if not then how do you know how good they actually are...

Well, that's tough. Why are they your only two options?

I personally tend to look at the global league tables as a postgraduate student which takes into account a university's research output and peer reputation etc.

The domestic rankings in my view are incredibly flawed and very subjective taking into account stupid factors like student satisfaction etc.