Complete University Guide 2016 ranking - falling UCAS points for top universities?

I wonder why someone cannot understand that research is more of a function of graduate/postgraduate education. Please help me explain this to this guy from India who hasn't studied university in the UK, because he's having a hard time understanding the higher education in the Western world.

If you're reading undergrad history or undergrad English, for instance, you don't do research work. You attend classroom lectures, participate on classroom discussions, and take the exams. That's how undergrads do. They don't do research work. Even graduate education is divided into two -- one is research based and the other is course work, which does not require research. Research output does not concern much to most undergrads. Period.

And you think student satisfaction is a better tool for measuring how good an academic institution is than using research?

I honestly think both the UG rankings and the international league tables have strengths and weaknesses and the true answer lies somewhere in between. The international league tables bring some degree of international recognition to a uni ranked highly on it. There is no doubt, but they don't always correlate with a strong undergraduate prestige or education. Mr. Rojas is right in that if you took a look at the top 30 unis in the US ranked by a table like THE, QS or ARWU it would be very different from a top 30 unis that most Americans would agree on.

Its similar to the UK as well and Canada and many other nations.

So both rankings have faults, a combination of both is probably the best but unfortunately this sort of rankings doesn't exist.

For undergraduate, I'd say, yes.

Take note of what I'll say so I wouldn't have to repeat myself to you over and over again.

Student Satisfaction is a subjective criterion, and though it is an undergrad concern, should have to be, in my opinion, be separated from the undergrad ranking. I believe that only objective criteria should be taken into account when making rankings. All subjective data should have its own table. That said, because it is an undergraduate concern, I think it is far more relevant than using research as one of the criteria for making undergraduate rankings.

If the league table was for graduate and postgraduate education then using research output as a criterion would be more relevant.

I understand where you're coming from, LutherVan, and why you always appear clueless and ignorant on here. But I urge you to read what I just wrote and understand it very carefully so I wouldn't have to repeat myself to you over and over again.

To simplify what you've said: The international league tables concern the graduate and postgraduate levels, whilst the local league tables concern the undergraduate education.

Thus, if you're seeking for a university to read graduate studies then you'll be far better served by the international league tables. However, if you're looking for an undergraduate school because you're still an entering college student, you'd be dumb to refer to the international league tables, because you'll be missing hundreds of very strong undergraduate schools in the country where you're aiming to take your college degree in.

For example, if you want to major in economics because you'd want to join in IBanking in the US, you're far better of going to Williams College (un-ranked) or Dartmouth College which is an Ivy League School (lowly ranked in the international league tables) than places like Wisconsin or Maryland or Texas-Austin (all were highly ranked by the international league tables). In the same way that when you're aiming to join in IBanking in London and you do have two options in your hand: Warwick and King's, it is wise and prudent to go for Warwick over King's as Warwick is a TOP TARGET school for IBanking in the city whilst King's isn't.

what are you talking about? Didnt you know 99% of 18 YEAR OLD uk students entering a uni, use the level of REF () and phd rankings to determine which university to go to? what a poor post, 18 year olds choosing an undergrad degree dont look at other level of quality students years above them and what unis they go to, they look for ref assessments and world ranking for postgrads.

Students look at a variety of things, such as UK rankings, World rankings, graduate employer targeting, industrial placements, specific professional degree courses offered. Universities and governments look much more at World rankings and REF results.

well seeing as this is a site for students, im guessing the previous assertion is more visible ,hence people saying things like kings is great based on crap like ref, thinking that will impact a teenagers view, is lolworthy, correct?

REF has a massive impact on the university, as a good result will lead to an increase in government grants, and a bad result will lead to job losses and loss of confidence in the university.

what are you talking about? Didnt you know 99% of 18 YEAR OLD uk students entering a uni, use the level of REF () and phd rankings to determine which university to go to? what a poor post, 18 year olds choosing an undergrad degree dont look at other level of quality students years above them and what unis they go to, they look for ref assessments and world ranking for postgrads.

youre not listening. For a STUDENT, expecting them to look at ref as a method to choose a university is a joke correct? warwick destroys kings student vs student, but earns less form alumni. according to one specific member on this site, that makes kcl better. is that lolworthy? we are focusing on the student here, not the university.

Some students look at drinking culture, fine girls, people like them, easy standards, city of location etc. But what do you think an undergrad student would look for that you will use to set up a ranking? Or are those what you will use?

Maybe it is you who isn't listening. What tariff points average a university has is no basis for judging how good the university is. Some universities have more science based courses, others have many more arts and humanities courses. KCL is very much a science based university, particularly in Medical Sciences. Science will always be seen as more prestigious and more competitive than arts courses.

so if oxford has a lower ucas requirement that manchester it would be seen as better still? ok. it is an excellent judge of how good a university is, that isnt even something to discuss lol. kcl despite having medicine, dentistry is ranked 15th, below strathcylyde, for average ucas tariff. that is HORRIFIC. last post ill make here. youre correct, hence warwick destroys kcl as warwick science is miles better.

I think you will find that KCL is more highly regarded in the academic World than Warwick, much more highly regarded in fact, and QS is proof of that. Tariff points averages go on trends, what is hot now will probably not be in 10 years.

completely failed to understand that once again i said look from a students perspective, not fifty year old academics and an international ranking which doesnt incorporate what uk students are thinking about. i dont understand why some people are difficult to speak to, nevermind.

Maybe it is you who isn't listening. What tariff points average a university has is no basis for judging how good the university is. Some universities have more science based courses, others have many more arts and humanities courses. KCL is very much a science based university, particularly in Medical Sciences. Science will always be seen as more prestigious and more competitive than arts courses.

last response i will give to you as i find you futile and i am not going to ever waste time like that again from last week. previous generations are what people use, followed by the ranking for specific courses, followed by the general perception of the university in the news/online etc. i didnt know what warwick was until year 12, actually apart from lse and oxbridge i didnt know any other university in the country, i found out by seeing what others were doing, and warwick ucl and imperial were very common unis that cropped up which caused me to research further. i was not told to look at alumni funding, as there isnt any teenager who uses that methodology to select a university.