If league tables are inaccurate, what's the point of them?

League tables such as the Guardian and Complete University Guide are so poorly put together and biased that they're evidently ridiculous.

Why don't league tables exist that rate a university on their actual reputation rather than meaningless measures? They're so influential towards where people apply yet don't correlate with a university's reputation in reality.

KCL and Manchester are examples of modestly ranked universities with reputations far superior to some near the top, such as Surrey.

So why do they exist?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Swanbow

Because people read them, and it generates revenue.

Reply 2

ByronicHero

People like to rank things and like to see how other people rank things. As long as this remains the case similar tables will continue to exist. Besides, if it were not for these tables we wouldn't have had the delightful experience a short time ago of this place being full of UCL students trying to persuade anyone who would listen (nobody) that they attended the 4th best university in the world. The fact is that the tables tend to make people feel better about themselves. People who attend traditionally prestigious universities feel good for that reason and people that don't can usually find some league table to another ranking their course at their university in the top-20. It is broadly harmless.

Reply 3

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by Exceptional

So why do they exist?
Posted from TSR Mobile

The short answer is that they exist to make money.

Reply 4

Okorange

I believe a university's real reputation lies with its entry tariffs. Invariably, the more difficult a program is to gain entry into the more reputation it has.

Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, Durham, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick, Bath, Edinburgh are the unis by overall entry tariff, which is pretty similar to how most would rank undergraduate unis in real life anyways.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5

Folion

No such thing as an unbiased table as the person who created it is biased towards the criteria they include and what weighting they give it.

No table is "incorrect" unless they have doctored the raw data on which it is based.

These things are created just because they can be. As soon as you have data that you can compare from one institution to the next somebody will inevitably make comparisons and tables.

Don't see how you can make tables based on reputation because reputation is unquantifiable.

Reply 6

NotJustAName

People just love to rank things, don't they? What makes us think one uni is better than the other? People tend to have their own rankings of unis in their heads, which are ironically conjured up from past league tables.

Reply 7

Clip

Asking this question on TSR is like urinating on the Magna Carta.

Reply 8

Okorange

League tables are most relevant when people don't know much about your subject or university.

Reply 9

nulli tertius

Original post by Okorange

I believe a university's real reputation lies with its entry tariffs. Invariably, the more difficult a program is to gain entry into the more reputation it has.

Which is the ultimate Vith former's eye view.

The rankings in the academics' trade paper the Times Higher Education Supplement are no better and no worse than any others but do show what those who publish to academics think are important.

Low and behold there is no measure of the entry standard of undergraduates at all

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking/methodology

Indeed the only metrics that involve undergraduates at all that are measured are:-

(a) the proportion of international students large=good

(b) the proportion of undergraduate to postgraduate students large=bad

That may make you want to stop and think how your world view is seen by those in the "trade".

Reply 10

cambio wechsel

I am a 34'' inside leg, but when I go to a tailors they use these idiotic tape-measures that suggest me as a 32''. 'Tape measures' my arse. Why have 'em if they're inaccurate?

Reply 11

Okorange

Original post by nulli tertius

People who are hiring don't care much about research, they just want smart, hardworking, ambitious students which is why they care about entry tariffs. Schools like Brown University and Dartmouth are nowhere to be found on world rankings because they don't have as much research, however their grads are sought after purely because they are very competitive for entry.

Reply 12

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by Okorange

People who are hiring don't care much about research, they just want smart, hardworking, ambitious students which is why they care about entry tariffs.

In my experience they don't care about entry tariffs either.

Reply 13

Okorange

Original post by Smack

In my experience they don't care about entry tariffs either.

They don't specifically look for entry tariffs but they do look at a competitive uni in a better light than a non-competitive one.

Reply 14

Folion

Original post by Okorange

Believe it or not tariffs don't automatically equate to hardworking or ambitious.

Original post by Smack

In my experience they don't care about entry tariffs either.

Pretty much this ^^^^^

Employers will be more interested in what you did in the 3 or 4 years at uni after you got your A levels (or whatever entry qualifications) than what UMS and tariffs you scored.

Reply 15

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by Okorange

They don't specifically look for entry tariffs but they do look at a competitive uni in a better light than a non-competitive one.

I didn't see any evidence of that at all at the companies I have worked at.

I did see a disproportionate amount of new grads and interns from particular universities, but whether the companies actively sought out students from these universities, or whether students from these universities were much more likely to apply to the companies, or whether they performed better at interview, I cannot tell.

Reply 16

Okorange

Original post by Folion

Believe it or not tariffs don't automatically equate to hardworking or ambitious.

Pretty much this ^^^^^

Employers will be more interested in what you did in the 3 or 4 years at uni after you got your A levels (or whatever entry qualifications) than what UMS and tariffs you scored.

That is true that they care about what you did at uni more (a 1st or internships are more important), but while tariffs may not equate it, they do correlate with hard work and ambition.

Very few lazy and unambitious people end up at Oxford compared to London Met.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

Folion

Original post by Okorange

Very few lazy and unambitious people end up at Oxford compared to London Met.

Depends how that ambition translates though. Somebody who is selfishly ambitious and hard working doesn't necessarily translate into a good employee and an asset to the company.

Somebody who is a brilliant academic student can be terrible at getting on in the work place. Presumably most employers are looking for a balance between sufficient academic ability and nous and workplace understanding.

Reply 18

Okorange

Original post by Folion

Sure i agree with you, but i think i just want to call a spade a spade for once. There is this attitude of "everyone is great, everyone is smart, everyone is successful as if we are all the same and are all going to be equally successful". People who don't improve, adapt and compete fall behind.

There is a massive elephant in the room about what leads to success in a career. It is a combination of intelligence, ambition, hardwork, willingness to change and sociability. There seems to be this impression around TSR that you can't have it all, TSR loves to avoid extremes as well, actually in fact a lot of people do have it all. Lucky for them I guess, but these people exist.

People who got into good schools did so for a reason, they worked for those grades and achieved them. That takes dedication. period. Many of them also do extracurricular activities that make them well rounded. The best debater in your school who won awards probably wasn't a one trick pony, they probably had good grades in school I bet.

I don't like the implication of "oh the people who get 1sts are clearly just nerds with no social life". Sure you will disagree with this point, but there is always the implied, well grades aren't everything and a lot of people who do well in school aren't very social... How about, be social and have good grades? Once again, the theme of not being able to do two things at the same time.

Oh and the thing about ambitious people being selfish. You can be ambitious and kind at the same time, ambition is just a word for self improvement. Can you work on improving yourself and be nice to others at the same time? Sure you can.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 19

callum_law

You say the rankings are inaccurate because some unis' rankings don't match their prestige. The question is what is prestige and how do we assess it? Clearly, prestige is extremely subjective and some universities which are seen as prestigious are actually quite poor. The rankings therefore exist as an objective guide to overcome the shortcomings the subjective term 'prestige' creates.

Like others, I think the most important crtierion is entry tariff and the average grade at point of entry. Other significant considerations are research assessment and graduate prospects. I think satisfaction is a pointless thing to consider, personally. Spending is a little dubious as well. Staff ratio likewise.