The Top 10 UK Universities

Again, you're showing me only one survey, which is a very controversial one at that, to start with.
If you're smart, you must have figured it out already that I only give weight to a report having a more comprehensive data, such as a summation of all surveys, given that numerous surveys are being published now.

Stop playing with us.

Which league table did you look at?
This league table tells us that Warwick is not only superior to King's in terms of student selectivity, it also is superior to King's in RESEARCH, that's aside from STUDENT SATISFACTION RATING.
2.80 of Warwick vs 2.69 of King's -- http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ngs?o=Research

Is King's really a superior uni than Imperial is for research? Really?? Come on. You're making me laugh...

Here's your problem, young man. You assume too much. That is your problem.

International league tables don't weigh much for undergraduate education. And, since we're talking about undergraduate education here, those rankings brings very little value.

Edinburgh should be above KCL and behind UCL. No way, you can leave it outside the Top 10. Bristol too.

KCL outranks Edinburgh on the REF, THE reputation rankings, (THE actual rankings, come to that,) and the New York Times employment rankings. Clearly academics and companies the world over disagree with you.

Also, London is just better than Edinburgh.

Bristol is one of several unis that can make a somewhat plausible claim to a spot somewhere near the bottom of the top 10. Durham, Warwick, Bristol, Manchester, etc, all go in that band.

International league tables don't weigh much for undergraduate education. And, since we're talking about undergraduate education here, those rankings brings very little value.

To be frank it is a very close race and arguable either way, but I would personally give the position after the Top 5 to Edinburgh and KCL will be 7th.

But that said, Edinburgh submitted far more staff, almost 400 more (roughly the same amount more that KCL submitted in comparison to Warwick).

400 is close to the same amount of staff LSE, St Andrews and Bath submitted in total for assessment. That is a significant difference.

So Edinburgh was taking more risks than KCL and still performed almost on par. KCL took more risk than Warwick and did far better.

Oh, I see!

You used the same source when you stated this:



It was not "controversial" then? Nor was it "only one survey"? It was "credible"?

I now get the rules:

When the same source states that Warwick is better than another university, you use it, it is credible.

But when the reverse is the case, you reject it and state "it is just one survey, which is controversial"?

Controversial to whom?

After that, can you then show some other "credible" survey you know that demonstrate that Warwick is superior to KCL in research.



Stop laughing and use your brain to think about it.

They are very different in size, that is the only reason KCL was slightly higher than Imperial, and UCL was higher than Cambridge and Oxford, in THE's rankings.

Are you still laughing?

When you look at other measures independent of size then Imperial triumphs.

- Imperial (4th) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) than Strand Poly (7th).

- Imperial (1st) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) and 3* (Internationally excellent research) than Strand Poly (10th).

- Imperial (1st) beat Strand Poly (6th) in THE's GPA (Quality) rankings.

- Imperial (6th) beat Strand Poly (7th) in Guardian's research power rankings, but not THE's one.

This is despite Imperial submitting roughly the same amount of staff as KCL, which means, considering the size difference, Imperial submitted a high proportion of staff for all that superior stats to KCL's.

Warwick despite being roughly the same size as Strand Poly does not beat it in anyway.

Strand Poly is a better research institution than Warwick.

Are you still laffing, insecure Warwick graduate?

4. However, it seems strong undergraduate matriculants tend to favor Warwick over KCL. Warwick has a median tariff score of 509, while KCL has a score of 466.

Edinburgh submitted far more staff than KCL, but they also have far more eligible staff (roughly 400 more). The idea that universities that submit higher numbers of staff are taking more risks is wrong. It's all about the percentage of eligible staff submitted, not raw numbers. On this front, there is very little that separates Edinburgh (83%), KCL (80%), and Warwick (83%).

Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/ref-2014-rerun-who-are-the-game-players/2017670.article

wait what? "Strand Poly"

errr

From 1- 10

The University of Surrey
UCLAN
University of Liverpool
University of Dundee
University of Chester
Middlesex University
London Southbank University
The University of Croydon (wud b number 1 but it's in Croydon )
Manchester Metropolitan University
The University of Oxford (Would be at number 12 but Harry Potter went there )

what kind of crap is that? surely ljmu over oxford?!

War and Peace,

I do not use international rankings as reference because they do not reflect the real and actual prestige and strength of the universities. Additionally, the mobility of the international students is more common at the undergraduate level. Rankings that cover globally do rank the grad and postgrad levels, not the undergrad levels. Therefore, it is nonsense to debate about the actual strength and prestige of the UK unis basing on rankings with criteria supposedly for graduate and post-graduate levels.

Take a look at these rankings:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/11098627/Top-100-world-universities-201415-QS-rankings.html

They'll all tell you that Wisconsin is superior to Brown or UCLA is superior to Dartmouth or UT-Austin is superior to Rice University and so on, but in the USA, such isn't the case. No one would be willing to go for Wisconsin than Brown, or for UCLA for Dartmouth if for UT-Austin for Rice. I bet that almost everyone at Wisconsin would be very much willing to swap places with Brown students than the other way around. The same thing can be said in the UK. I bet no one at LSE would be very much willing to swap his place with someone from King's. No one from Cambridge would be very much willing to swap his place with Imperial. But when you look at the rankings that you and LutherVan are citing, it would seem that such is not the actual case in the UK. But the truth is -- no one sees LSE is in equal footing with King's or Cambridge is in equal footing with Imperial. Most students see them belonging to different leagues. Cambridge is in a league above Imperial, and LSE is miles in a league above King's. Yet, Luther Van keeps insisting most students do think LSE is inferior to King's, based on his logic.

Prestige is MOSTLY determined by the selectivity level of the university. I have not known a school/uni that has a lenient selection process in the US or UK which most people regard it to be more prestigious, more respected than those that have more stringent requirements. There's a reason why Oxbridge is prestigious. There's a reason why Imperial/LSE are more prestigious than Manchester/Nottingham. There's a reason why Warwick is more prestigious than King's. If King's was more prestigious, it would have been more difficult to gain entry to King's. But we all know that Warwick students, on average, are superior to King's. And, there's a reason why the top employers, HRDs of top banks, financial institutions and management consulting firms highly favors Warwick graduates to King's graduates.

Maybe you're right about King's having a top program in War Studies/Defence Studies. But no offense, how many people do you think are interested in the program? Compare that to how many people are interested in MBA or a master's degree in fields related to banking, finance, economics, business and management.