Why do you think the University of Liverpool gets so much flak?

There is a great deal of snobbery involved in University selection. And Southerners in particular making assumptions about what they think Liverpool (both Uni and city) is like. Say 'Manchester' and that is fine apparently (even with Surrey public school okay-yahs) but mention 'Liverpool' and they all start making silly remarks about the Beatles and trying to put on a Liverpool accent. If Liverpool had the same 'reputation' for partying as Newcastle or Leeds then that in itself would make it fashionable and applicants (especially Southerners) would flock there. If it stuck its entrance requirements up to A*AA then they'd all be gagging to get in there as well.

If you compare Liverpool to somewhere like Bristol they are actually very similar Unis - RG, strung out campus in centre of town, lots of different sorts of buildings, big science/tech focus but good for Humanities/Soc Sci too. Etc etc. However, one is perceived as 'posh' and the other 'working class'. However if this keeps the over-privileged in Manchester or Bristol or wherever that's fine. Liverpool is full of 'normal' people - lets keep it that way.

In the eyes of employers, do you think the metric of league tables makes a huge difference?

No. Most main stream employers (outside banking, economics and law) don't read League Tables and don't sift job applications depending on what Uni you went to or where it was on any rankings/league tables. Its actually only school-leavers and their teachers who are obsessed about League Tables or 'RG'. Even for academic jobs not much notice is taken of where you did your first degree - its your overall academic/career profile and your individuality they regard, not the heading on your degree certificate. Quite why school-leavers get so worked up about League Table positions is beyond me - it really is irrelevant.

I was just wondering what you guys thought about the general attitude towards UoL. I do think it's silly to ceaselessly fret over league tables and such, but it seems as though UoL has a bit of a poor reputation in the eyes of certain people. The Guardian don't seem to rate it very highly, for instance. I understand that there's a disparity between the quality of research and, say, the standards of undergraduate teaching. Quite a few academics seem to view undergrad lecturing as a bit of a chore, to be honest.

Obviously, league table research methodologies are sketchy, at best. 'Student satisfaction' is one which seems somewhat spurious, to me. A couple of unis (one of which was Kingston, unless I'm wrong, which is very possible) have been caught trying to abuse this statistic.

That being said, considering the standard of research and amount of Nobel laureates the uni's churned out compared to other universities, as well as other factors, why do some people turn their noses up at its mention? Is it the reputation of the city, or is there any credible basis for this sort of criticism? Unless things turn around in 2015, it seems as though it's going to keep dropping in the league tables. In the eyes of employers, do you think the metric of league tables makes a huge difference?

I can understand that student satisfaction may have been low these last few years, thanks in part to all the renovation works that either needed doing or that were in progress. The student union has had no permanent premises for the last year or so. Some of the teaching buildings left a lot to be desired. Very little on-campus accommodation (now a thing of the past) made the central campus soulless.
But with a £600m revamp, I am sure that the difference will start to be seen in the league tables. Ok, new buildings and facilities (voted best in the UK by the Guardian, btw (http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/feb/27/guardian-university-awards-2013-winners) don't directly make the standard of undergrad teaching better, but they should start attracting better academic staff who may have been put off in the past by outdated conditions.

The conditions awaiting students in Sept 2014 will be better than at any time in the Uni's history, and this is bound to filter down into the student satisfaction rating.

As you say, some unis cheat the league tables. One example is by offering foundation years to BCC or CCC applicants when the publicly announced Year 1 entry requirement is AAB. And some graduating students must have their arms twisted to give favourable satisfaction responses to the pollsters, claiming that this will raise the image of their uni and, by consequence, increase the perceived value of their degree.

I personally was highly impressed when I visited the School of Engineering, the town of Liverpool just blew me away, and the main campus is now modern, architecturally varied and with a good balance of facilities / halls of residence. I can't see why you think it could fall in the rankings in the future.

I am considering Upool, but concerned about what this post is about. Lpool has a long history, and has the RG name to boast; but, beyond that, it worries me that Lpool is slipping in the tables. I know that league tables shouldn't be looked at as a whole, where a slightly different calculation can produce very different results. However, when I look at a specific factor like employability, the score is undesirably low.

Can anyone allay the worries? Is Lpool an old university that is sliding in prestige and reputation?