Times Higher Education 2015 Reputation Rankings Released!
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2015/reputation-ranking
UK:
Cambridge - 2nd
Oxford - 3rd
Imperial - 14th
UCL - 17th
LSE - 22nd
Edinburgh - 29th
KCL - 31st
Manchester - 50th
A number of unis climbed dramatically this year, Edinburgh, King's, Manchester and UCL climbed several places, LSE climbed 2 places, Oxford and Cambridge climbed from 4th and 5th to 2nd and 3rd respectively and Imperial fell one place.
UK:
Cambridge - 2nd
Oxford - 3rd
Imperial - 14th
UCL - 17th
LSE - 22nd
Edinburgh - 29th
KCL - 31st
Manchester - 50th
A number of unis climbed dramatically this year, Edinburgh, King's, Manchester and UCL climbed several places, LSE climbed 2 places, Oxford and Cambridge climbed from 4th and 5th to 2nd and 3rd respectively and Imperial fell one place.
League tables don't look at the same thing reputation does. These rankings are nothing more than the opinions of highly cited and published scholars.
The main difference this year was they reduced the number of responses from North America and they state at least that they achieved the most balanced spread of responses from disciplines that they have ever had. Arts and humanities was better represented this year from 9% to 16%.
"In the survey, scholars are questioned at the level of their specific subject discipline. They are not asked to create a ranking themselves or to list a large range of institutions, but to name no more than 10 universities that they believe are the best, based on their own experience."
The main difference this year was they reduced the number of responses from North America and they state at least that they achieved the most balanced spread of responses from disciplines that they have ever had. Arts and humanities was better represented this year from 9% to 16%.
"In the survey, scholars are questioned at the level of their specific subject discipline. They are not asked to create a ranking themselves or to list a large range of institutions, but to name no more than 10 universities that they believe are the best, based on their own experience."
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by rkhan57
I don't understand this because Manchester has gone down in the uk league tables ������
The UK league tables are essentially customer service ratings. They have a heavy focus on the care for student.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3001705&page=28&p=52971999#post52971999
International league tables are essentially reputation tables. They have a heavy focus on research of universities and the perception of the quality of these by global academics and employers.
There are numerous international league tables and Manchester ranks highly in all:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=9cf408
http://cwur.org/2014/
Its reputation is very high. And it is those 8 universities above that you will see consistently at the top in all the tables.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by LutherVan
The UK league tables are essentially customer service ratings. They have a heavy focus on the care for student.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3001705&page=28&p=52971999#post52971999
International league tables are essentially reputation tables. They have a heavy focus on research of universities and the perception of the quality of these by global academics and employers.
There are numerous international league tables and Manchester ranks highly in all:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=9cf408
http://cwur.org/2014/
Its reputation is very high. And it is those 8 universities above that you will see consistently at the top in all the tables.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3001705&page=28&p=52971999#post52971999
International league tables are essentially reputation tables. They have a heavy focus on research of universities and the perception of the quality of these by global academics and employers.
There are numerous international league tables and Manchester ranks highly in all:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=9cf408
http://cwur.org/2014/
Its reputation is very high. And it is those 8 universities above that you will see consistently at the top in all the tables.
Which uni would be better for law then, Manchester or Birmingham?
Original post by rkhan57
Which uni would be better for law then, Manchester or Birmingham?
They are really on par to be frank. No difference really.
I'm very surprised that MIT has dropped so much and Oxford has climbed so much. I think Oxford's was boosted by the excellent REF results.
The interesting thing about this table as always is how how ahead the Top 6 are. Top 6 are in the 60s or above, and No 7 is already only half of that, with only 10 in total above 20, and 24 above 10. This suggests that basically the academics don't want to read the research from most universities.
The interesting thing about this table as always is how how ahead the Top 6 are. Top 6 are in the 60s or above, and No 7 is already only half of that, with only 10 in total above 20, and 24 above 10. This suggests that basically the academics don't want to read the research from most universities.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
I'm very surprised that MIT has dropped so much and Oxford has climbed so much. I think Oxford's was boosted by the excellent REF results.
The interesting thing about this table as always is how how ahead the Top 6 are. Top 6 are in the 60s or above, and No 7 is already only half of that, with only 10 in total above 20, and 24 above 10. This suggests that basically the academics don't want to read the research from most universities.
The interesting thing about this table as always is how how ahead the Top 6 are. Top 6 are in the 60s or above, and No 7 is already only half of that, with only 10 in total above 20, and 24 above 10. This suggests that basically the academics don't want to read the research from most universities.
Its not about the uni its about the research itself/the journal its published in. Plenty of breakthroughs happen in unis no one has heard of. I'm pretty sure academics are just saying which unis are the big names but i'm sure they are perfectly happy to read research that is good no matter where its from. On Pubmed for example the institution is only listed under a spoiler.
I didn't understand what you meant about the top 6 and no 7 and 10 in total above 20. What were you referring to?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Okorange
Its not about the uni its about the research itself/the journal its published in. Plenty of breakthroughs happen in unis no one has heard of. I'm pretty sure academics are just saying which unis are the big names but i'm sure they are perfectly happy to read research that is good no matter where its from. On Pubmed for example the institution is only listed under a spoiler.
I didn't understand what you meant about the top 6 and no 7 and 10 in total above 20. What were you referring to?
I didn't understand what you meant about the top 6 and no 7 and 10 in total above 20. What were you referring to?
The scores in relation to the No 1 university (Harvard). Times termed this the 'big six' last time and the pattern remains the same. There's a huge drop-off after UC Berkeley at No 6 from 60% of Harvard's to the 30s%. After the No 10 university, no-one has managed to go up to 20%, and after 24 universities all the other ones are in single digits. This means the movements beyond Top 24 or even Top 10 are unlikely to really mean anything when everybody's so close, and academics from all fields really go for a very selective group of universities.
Original post by Juichiro
There it is, TSR ***turbating over uni rankings. 
Does that upset you? If it does, go to http://forum.bodybuilding.com, they don't talk about uni rankings over there.
Original post by clh_hilary
The scores in relation to the No 1 university (Harvard). Times termed this the 'big six' last time and the pattern remains the same. There's a huge drop-off after UC Berkeley at No 6 from 60% of Harvard's to the 30s%. After the No 10 university, no-one has managed to go up to 20%, and after 24 universities all the other ones are in single digits. This means the movements beyond Top 24 or even Top 10 are unlikely to really mean anything when everybody's so close, and academics from all fields really go for a very selective group of universities.
Well academics were asked which were the top 10 universities in their respective subject areas. So, naturally there is going to be some consensus Top 10 unis aka the big six. It doesn't mean that the academics only read or only want to read papers from those top 6 unis that much more than from other unis. The reason why the other unis were all ranked so close is likely because they were all mentioned about the same number of times.
A school like Cambridge, Oxford is likely to be mentioned in the top 10 in most fields whereas a school like Edinburgh or UCL or King's might only be mentioned by academics in areas where these unis have a special excellence.
"This suggests that basically the academics don't want to read the research from most universities."
From a research point of view, no one actually judges a paper's importance based on the university it comes from. People tend to form that initial judgement based on what journal it is published in and the abstract.
World leading research strongly depends on who is on staff, the best unis (i.e. the top 20) are able to attract the best staff and more funding, however the other unis are often still able to attract world leading staff in some specialized fields. In these specific areas of research, these smaller unis can shine to become global leaders and it may just be due to one specific researcher on staff who is leading the world on this issue. However, only people involved in that specific research field would even know this is the case.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is King's College really good?
- Bayes vs Manchester vs Nottingham vs Cranfield MSc in Finance- International student
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- UCL or SOAS - Masters
- choosing between Warwick or Bath
- Uni of leicester for Law
- Which offer should I accept?
- Is UCL the best after Oxbridge?
- PGCE at UCL or Goldsmiths
- London Met vs Greenwich vs UEL
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Bsc accounting and finance
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- DMU
- Manchester vs Bayes (Cass) vs Lancaster
- Best Msc Finance degrees?
- is LSE better than Durham
- ucl or manchester
- KCL vs Edinburgh?
- Which uni should i put as my firm?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
