Does research rating of a degree matter?

v2006

Kings only score 4 in their research rating for computer science. Does that mean they are a bad department because of their low research rating or just they dont focus much on research?

Reply 1

lucho22

13

v2006

Kings only score 4 in their research rating for computer science. Does that mean they are a bad department because of their low research rating or just they dont focus much on research?

I'd say the research rating is a fairly good indicator as to the quality of the department. 5 and 5* are what you should look for :wink:

Reply 2

Jordan7

8

v2006

Kings only score 4 in their research rating for computer science. Does that mean they are a bad department because of their low research rating or just they dont focus much on research?

I always overlooked the quality of research as an indicator to choose a uni. As an undergraduate, assuming you do not pursue a further degree, the factor most important is teaching quality. Even so, i wouldnt base any decision of a course on the quality assessments or individual subject league tables, as you could go somewhere crap that is just good for your subject. The fact KCL got a 4 may just mean that they arent botherd with research, it doesnt directly affect the quality of the department.

Reply 3

Melana

14

It also reflects how much money they've got as a department....

Reply 4

kellywood_5

17

Personally I wasn't really bothered about research, just teaching. If you were a postgraduate, it would obviously be more important. KCL is a really good uni, and I doubt most employers know/care about individual subject ratings anyway.

Reply 5

peachmelba

8

People are right to say that teaching quality is critical for an undergraduate. The trouble is, it is now almost impossible to assess directly in advance of attending a university.

The QAA reports were detailed but are now several years out of date. They have been abandoned in favour of the National Student Survey http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/start/. Problems with the survey are that:

•

some places don't participate (oxbridge, warwick & most scottish unis)

•

most students only have experience of one uni so have nothing to compare their own uni with

•

with some exceptions, unis are clustered tightly together i.e. their students rate them favourably

That's why the research rating is important. If you compare the departments rated 5*/5 with those rated top for teaching under the old QAA system, you'ff find that they were often identical. The idea that some unis were only good at research and some only good at teaching was a fallacy. Strong research goes hand in hand with good teaching. Reasons for this are fairly obvious:

•

high research rating means better funding, as already pointed out

•

cutting edge research means that passionate academics are passing on latest knowledge of their subject, often writing the textbooks rather than regurgitating them

•

high flying academics are attracted to departments with the best research ratings; departmental reputation is critical in building their career, networking and so on

So, research rating isn't the perfect way to judge the best places to study as an undergraduate but at least it is objective and enables you to differentiate. You also need to watch out for the letter after the number as it tells you what proportion of the department was assessed.

I'm learning from my own experience that, even in a highly rated department, teaching quality varies. The trick is to find the lecturers & tutors who can really open up their subject for you - and that's a highly personal thing.

Reply 6

v2006

OP

So you are saying that kings has a fairly medicore computer science department as it only got a 4 rating in its research?

Reply 7

Mustard-man

18

kellywood_5

Personally I wasn't really bothered about research, just teaching. If you were a postgraduate, it would obviously be more important. KCL is a really good uni, and I doubt most employers know/care about individual subject ratings anyway.