Don't you think that Durham and Edinburgh have more national reputation (reputation in the UK) than Imperial, LSE or UCL?
I wouldn't say so. I consider Durham to be equal to UCL, yes, but LSE and Imperial are largely different so you can't make a fair comparison in my opinion. Oxbridge is Oxbridge, so that's a different story. I don't think Edinburgh is close to either of these universities, but that is subjective and unsubstantiated.
Regardless, universities keep making smaller and smaller affiliations all the time (it's getting ridiculous now), like the Russel Group, the Golden Triangle, the G5 etc. In the end it's all pointless.
I think an extension to G10 would suite much more; Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Bristol, Warwick, Imperial, LSE and UCL. These are easily the 10 best universities in the UK.
Some people have mentioned Oxbridge but left out Imperial (Raymat, I'm looking at you!). I just want to point out it was ranked second in the world behind MIT, tied with Cambridge. If it's ahead of Oxford then anywhere you rank "Oxbridge" as high up, Imperial is tied to it.
Personally I would have put Manchester ahead of St Andrews, though they are both top universities.
If there was some form of university challenge to get into this group then Imperial would have to yield to Manchester and St Andrews. How are we judging entrance, and how does it relate to the aim of a G8 group?
Some people have mentioned Oxbridge but left out Imperial (Raymat, I'm looking at you!). I just want to point out it was ranked second in the world behind MIT, tied with Cambridge. If it's ahead of Oxford then anywhere you rank "Oxbridge" as high up, Imperial is tied to it.
I still mentioned Imperial if you look clearly at my poll and I have mentioned it just after mentioning Oxbridge. Also I heard that Durham had more national reputation than Imperial in the UK. St Andrews is ranked so highly in The Guardian league table so I would think that it has more national reputation than Imperial.
Personally I would have put Manchester ahead of St Andrews, though they are both top universities.
If there was some form of university challenge to get into this group then Imperial would have to yield to Manchester and St Andrews. How are we judging entrance, and how does it relate to the aim of a G8 group?
Places for St Andrews seems to be very competitive and would you say Manchester to be as good as Bristol/Warwick?
Competition ratios could be misleading. Oxbridge competition ratios are quite low for certain courses, that doesn't mean they are any less worthy of a spot. I'm not sure about Manchester to be honest, I don't really know where it fits. I know it's a large university that takes in successful students and produces successful graduates, but I've never quite known if the league tables (ranked 8th in the UK and 30th in the world just behind Bristol http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=) really reflect its true place - I just don;t know enough about it.
You're right, I hadn't seen the poll. I was merely looking at your second comment - my bad!
Welcometoib, you don't think Durham is a good university? Personally I put it quite high up for its non scientific courses (Classics etc...), and for its scientific courses slightly below Imperial/UCL but still high up there in the top echelons.
Does anyone else think that Imperial/LSE are way too specialist to be grouped with other normal universities? You can't do Humanities at Imperial or sciences (besides mathematical sciences) at LSE...whereas Oxford/Cambridge/Warwick/Durham/UCL etc have to balance their funding between many different types of department...
I do think LSE and Imperial are excellent research powerhouses but I thought for a fair league table the universities would have to be homogeneous and offer similar subjects...
machester as good as bristol and warwick? the latter two are pretty much seen as top 10 by everyone, manc not even close
I don't understand why Manchester's so underrated. It has a solid international reputation, excellent research power and facilities, and produces successful graduates (e.g. 25 Nobel laureates).
Don't you think that Durham and Edinburgh have more national reputation (reputation in the UK) than Imperial, LSE or UCL?
Definitely not. Especially as LSE and Imperial are specialist universities which are generally right at the top of their game in those subjects. You want to go into business/economics LSE is one of the best. You want to go into Science/Engineering then Imperial is one of the best. You also haven't mentioned kings which is considered very good as well for arts.
I've personally not met anyone who has seen Durham and Edinburgh as being better in general than Imperial or LSE or UCL, only better in certain subjects.
But I think there is a general trend of people having a group of universities in mind which are "the best" and that is becoming a bigger and bigger group. In terms of how good they are seen (ignoring stuff like history) I would not be surprised if oxbridge dies out at some point in the nearish future especially as specialist universities can be vastly better than oxbridge in the certain subjects they specialise in.